AHC: Rump Byzantine Empire lasts to present day

Alexander of Trebizond succeeds his father instead of John IV, and he maintains his alliances with the Georgians and the Ak Koyunlu, and not piss of the Ottomans or the Genoese, Trebizond could survive as a Black Sea Trading colony, probably under the influence of the Genoese or Venetians and later under the Russians.

I doubt they would ever call themselves Byzantines, but probably Trapezuntines
 
Alexander of Trebizond succeeds his father instead of John IV, and he maintains his alliances with the Georgians and the Ak Koyunlu, and not piss of the Ottomans or the Genoese, Trebizond could survive as a Black Sea Trading colony, probably under the influence of the Genoese or Venetians and later under the Russians.

I doubt they would ever call themselves Byzantines, but probably Trapezuntines

Would the Ottomans just let it continue to exist "forever" though?
 
Would the Ottomans just let it continue to exist "forever" though?
Probably not, they would have to enter into some kind of vassal relationship to the Ottomans, but without David on the throne, they may be able to get by without having their city conquered.
 
Probably not, they would have to enter into some kind of vassal relationship to the Ottomans, but without David on the throne, they may be able to get by without having their city conquered.

Why? I mean, sure, in the short term, without David being a bloody idiot, that's one thing.

But why would the Ottomans be fine with it as merely a vassal? What's in it for them to have it as a vassal as opposed to controlling it?

It's not a matter of lack of military power, and a Trebizond with links to the Italian merchant republics is a thorn in their side.
 
Well there was the Despotate of Morea which was ruled by a brother of one of the Emperors that lasted a short while after the fall of Constantinople, but thanks to general misrule which meant they couldn't pay their tribute and being a little too friendly with Venice the Ottomans decided to finally annex them. If they play things a little smarter they might be able to get away with surviving as a vassal state. The Ottomans also left Naxos pretty much to its own devices as long as they kept stumping up the taxes they owed, if the Byzantines had been able to retake the islands a branch of the imperial family might be able to get the same kind of deal as long as they don't make any waves.

Perhaps if the sitting emperor is smart (or cowardly) enough to move his throne to Morea and give Constantinople and the surrounding areas to the Sultan he could continue on as a vassal while referring to Morea and only Morea as Byzantium (letting the name survive while also sending a clear signal that Constantinople is Ottoman) Then the state can bump along as Ottoman territory under the titular rule of a Byzantine ruler until OTL Greek revolution conditions turn up and they get real independence, perhaps reclaiming Constantinople later down the line but with only the power/influence of OTL Greece by present day.
 
Why? I mean, sure, in the short term, without David being a bloody idiot, that's one thing.

But why would the Ottomans be fine with it as merely a vassal? What's in it for them to have it as a vassal as opposed to controlling it?

It's not a matter of lack of military power, and a Trebizond with links to the Italian merchant republics is a thorn in their side.

At the same time if it stays careful and doesnt piss them off why not keep it a vassal, I don't see why its any different than the Romanian princes who remained vassals for a very long time.
 
The difference is that it isn't a buffer state on the edge of the Ottoman's power projection. Rather, it's right near their centre of power. A surviving Trebizond could be possible if it was in fact a buffer, between the Ottomans and some powerful entity in the Caucasus, but even then as a strip of coast with minimal strategic depth it would need to find a particular niche for long term survival.
 
The difference is that it isn't a buffer state on the edge of the Ottoman's power projection. Rather, it's right near their centre of power. A surviving Trebizond could be possible if it was in fact a buffer, between the Ottomans and some powerful entity in the Caucasus, but even then as a strip of coast with minimal strategic depth it would need to find a particular niche for long term survival.

This.

And there is no reason at all for the Ottomans to regard someone claiming in any way shape or form to be a continuation of the "Byzantine" Empire to continue to exist - it's a threat to their authority.
 
At least the orange juice ads aren't filled by people making the most virulently racist and nasty comments they can think of.

. . . well, I assume they're not.

Warn me next time, Bytewave. :eek:
 

Deleted member 14881

If someone wants a real laugh, I stumbled on this when googling megali borders to refresh my memory before posting earlier. Its a riot.

Changes to Greek borders in the next 20 years 'based on existing military and geopolitical data'

That made me choke on my drink. Appropriately it was a 99 cent bottle of juice that 'made from real freshly pressed orange juice'. You decide which claim is the most outlandish :)

Even Venizuleos woulda laughed at that and Europe 100 yrs ago woulda headdesked about that
 
Well, a few ideas:

1) Avoid Manzikert entirely and keep Anatolia

2) Avoid 4th crusade or buy them off and redirect them somewhere else

3) Have Ottomans claim Byzantine throne through marriage with rump Ottoman state remaining after avoiding WWI

4) Permit Morea or Trebizond to exist as minor satellites of the Ottomans, slowly expanding influence until Morea controls much of Greece circa 1885 and Trebizond controls much of northern Anatolia. Let them go independent but separate

5) Get Greeks and Serbs to work more closely together in late 19th century and divide Balkans among them, especially at the expense of Bulgaria


Maybe something like this...?


Success at Varna shortly before 1453 permits Byzantines to exist as a smaller trading state but does grant them some breathing room. Have crusades from a rising Russia aimed largely at the Ottomans who are unable to finish Byzantium off immediately. They exchange rights to the city for perpetual control of Morea, (the approximate area of the Duchy of) Athens, Thessaly, Crete, Corfu, and most of the Aegean islands outside of Rhodes. Patriarch of Constantinople to relocate to Mt Athos as part of the deal and at the "request" of the Emperor, who reliquishes that title and is simply a hereditary office for "First of the Greeks". Ottoman forces have free reign of the nation militarily and are Ottoman in all but civilian leadership and name. Greek identity is kept alive over the long centuries and they bide their time until the late 1700s/early 1800s when they revolt and take most of modern Greece with them, allying with the Serbs and Bulgarians who win their freedom at the same time. They combine to wage a united series of Balkan Wars that allows Constantinople to come back into Greek hands along with much of northern and western Anatolia. The Serbs, already on very friendly terms with the Greeks, consent to a dynastic union while the Bulgars eventually merge their royal line into the mix as well. Romania becomes something of a satellite state and plays the Empire off of Russia, though the two get along fairly well (maybe it eventually joins too?). A thoroughly Orthodox nation emerges by 1880 running from Belgrade to Ardahan at the Georgian/Armenia border and the Danube delta to Dalaman (just across from Rhodes). Ottoman forces are humilitated largely in a Crimean-style conflict that sees the Empire tag team with Russia to being serious devastation to the Ottomans, the British and French are kept at bay only by the rise of the Empire as a newer counterweight. Its antagonism of Austria-Hungary is well-known by 1895 when it proceeds to come to the brink of war over Bosnia following several incidents along the Croatian frontier. This empire is not united by nationality but by faith, becoming a very Orthodox bastion that sees large areas of Bosnia and Albania convert by 1935. Ottoman forces still control Syria and the Levant with nominal control over Libya (taken by the Empire in 1902) and Egypt (British in all but name by 1860) but they are strongest in central/southern/eastern Anatolia which they retain. By the time of WWI there is palpable tension between Austria-Hungary and the Empire with the Ottomans aching for a chance at revenge and reconquest of the City of Men's Dreams...
 
...why not? That offshoot of the Roman Empire lacked Rome for what, a thousand years and they still called themselves Romanoi? Besides they get it back eventually.
 
Can't see any Ottoman sultan granting perpetual rights to any great expanse of territory in exchange for the city when taking the city and giving away nothing is entirely feasible.

Also, Russia in the late 15th century isn't even close to being in a position to lead "crusades" against the Ottomans. It has enough on its plate dealing with its own problems militarily.
 
Does the rump state in question have to refer to itself as Byzantine or can it call itself something different and just be called Byzantium colloquially?
 
It merely has to consider itself the successor state to the Byzantine Empire. So in Greek, I guess it might call itself "Neo-Rhomania," or whatever. That would probably get translated as "New Byzantine Empire," I suppose.
 
It merely has to consider itself the successor state to the Byzantine Empire. So in Greek, I guess it might call itself "Neo-Rhomania," or whatever. That would probably get translated as "New Byzantine Empire," I suppose.

I doubt it. We're getting away with that name because it hasn't existed in forever, and they were getting away with still claiming Rome because of the peculiar concepts of the time about lands outside the empire being inherently inferior and barbaric. A notion that would not mesh well with Westphalian realities.

The more I think about it, its quite likely a surviving Empire, by the age of nationalism, would consider a name change, and certainly not in favor of 'Byzantium'. You could have a surviving empire renaming itself Greece as it evolves into a nation-state. Or they could hold on to the old name for traditions sake, but in that case, there's no way 'Byzantium' would have ever caught on in the rest of the world. We might not call them 'Rome' either, but would probably use Romania in English, and obviously, the country we know as Romania, if it still exists as an independent state, would not bear the same name.
 
You could have Greece take a more active role in WWI, which eventually leads to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, as in OTL, but has Thrace and Constantinople(and possibly western Anatolia) annexed by Greece...

This is one of those areas of history that is always on my "I Want to Study It" List and never gets moved off of it, so I may be wrong here.

That actually tried that in OTL. The Greeks invaded Turkey almost as soon as the Ottoman government collapsed. They wanted to capture most of coastal Anatolia and, obviously, Constantinople. They lost in part because the Allies refused to help and in part because Mustafa Kemal managed to field an army against them. It ended badly for everyone involved. Both countries expelled a great deal of people from within their borders when the fighting ended. The Greeks expelled from Turkey, some of whom claimed to have been descended from Greek colonial populations dating to before the Persian Empire, were mainly settled in Athens. The city wouldn't be nearly as big as it is today without that influx. There were more than a few anti-Greek riots and massacres in Turkey while the Greeks decided that almost all of its Muslim population should be sent to Turkey after the war.


The more difficult question is having the Greeks rename their country by a name that they've never used themselves. The Greeks today refer to themselves as the "Hellenic Republic"

When they gained independence (or possibly even began fighting), there was some desire for the country to be called Romania or something akin to that. I cannot say how popular the desire was amongst the people and independence leaders. but there was definitely political pressure from the British and other Western supporters to call the country Greece. It was partially because of the Romantics affection for Ancient Greece. It was also partially because calling the country Romania might make the Ottomans think the *Romanians wanted Constantinople, which would have left the situation a bit fragile.
 
When they gained independence (or possibly even began fighting), there was some desire for the country to be called Romania or something akin to that. I cannot say how popular the desire was amongst the people and independence leaders. but there was definitely political pressure from the British and other Western supporters to call the country Greece. It was partially because of the Romantics affection for Ancient Greece. It was also partially because calling the country Romania might make the Ottomans think the *Romanians wanted Constantinople, which would have left the situation a bit fragile.

If they did call themselves Rhomaions, then would the Ottomans refuse to make peace?
 
Top