Anaxios: A Discussion on a Modern Byzantium

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Pressedflowers, Jan 31, 2019.

  1. Pressedflowers I listened to the Cure, and then I cried.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Location:
    Brenham, Texasdeutsches Volks Republik
    And they already were doing so... this is the alluring concept of being a Roman. Since Caracalla granted all free men and women citizenship, being a Roman meant being a citizen, thus exapnding the concept to a national one, outside of language, religion, and heritage. The Romans later made the focus more on following the established church, but that did not make one a non-citizen for not being a subscriber to the universal church. Turks, Bulgarians, Armenians, Albanians, Arabs, Egyptians, Syrians, Hellenes, all were Romans. All were bound by laws and had the use of the courts for justice. The emperor was their emperor and the empire theirs. The Republic was a public thing, a government and civilisation held in the commons. They were one nation, with one emperor. Something they guarded jealously and their neighbours never understood.

    Unfortunately this unique quality of worldview, their ideology, made them into total snobs.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2019 at 12:22 AM
    Evil Crusader likes this.
  2. Pressedflowers I listened to the Cure, and then I cried.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Location:
    Brenham, Texasdeutsches Volks Republik

    I think the comparison to the Russians is good, but insufficient. The Romans are not a people of megalomaniac nobles ruling simpering Slavic serfs. The peasantry is free (thanks be to God and Leo III), amd the rising urban peoples are enough counterbalance to the aristocrats and beuracrats to keep the power struggles violent enough to prevent a plutocracy. Remember that the Roman government is very socialistic/democratic (before the Komemnoi) and thus the nation will continue to be a very politically expressive (and violent) land.

    I agree with your statement about the east. The Romans will pick their battles with infidels ratger than heretics. Even without a fourth crusade, they will grow to see the Latins as demons just as the Russians did. Idk about a westernisation a la Peter the Great, but aside from the political, economic, and religious outlook, Greeks did trade extensively with the West, so i imagine they will continue to do so. They at least will not lag behind the West in terms of molitary, as the Romans (before the Latin occupation, and even after, as they did use canons) were astute observers of what made for sound military strategy and technology. I'm planning on having a back and forth with the Muslim east and the Romans, particularly with the Egyptians, so as to keep the Romans on their toes and from sliding into comfortable domination. Thus it keeps the people from sliding into decadance as can be seen in America.

    They will be the most odious of statist societies, making this hard core libertarian cringe. They will depsise any and all of the political theory of the West. They will laugh at their democracies, pointing out the plutocratic nature of them.

    As for the West... with feudalism already quite established, the trajectory is set for the plutocratic governments and capitalistic societies that will come. The hierachies are in place, one need only to introduce those historical inventions for the historical outcomes to be the same, the European aristocrats to become entrenched. Add in firearms and centralised states will emerge. These states tax and spend until an Enlightenment happens, to counteract and critique the centralised states. Revolutions will follow. Reactionaries will react to said revolutions and will win or not. Greed is ever prevalent in man, so I am certian colonialism will follow. More centralisation occurs, and an industrial revolution will spark from the progress of technology amd the resources made available to the Europeans. Epidemics will pave the way for more modern science, as will escalted conflicts. Eventually this will culminate in some catastrophic war that shifts rhe balance of power worldwide. My thoughts on history.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2019 at 11:54 AM
  3. Pressedflowers I listened to the Cure, and then I cried.

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Location:
    Brenham, Texasdeutsches Volks Republik
    I think I have a name for the previous Bulgarian descended Emperor who switches thrones, Symeon Asanis (Συμεών Ασάνης). The new emperor, a descendant of a local Ionian family, is Leon Metaxas. He is only 27.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2019 at 12:42 AM
  4. John7755 يوحنا Lightweight Faqih

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    The entire misconception of the previous posters was the concept at all of a Silk Road. There is no true Silk Road after the Islamic conquests. The Kushanshahs were essentially the crucible and necessary component of the Silk Road. The Silk Road in essence was the transfer by land of goods from Rome, Hindustan, Arabia, Persia, Central Asia and China with little political restrictions such as war blocking access. This was possible for only a single reason, that being the domination of most of the heavily populated sections of Afroeurasia by approximately four political entities (such an occurrence was only replicated once more with the Mongol Empire or the Pax Mongolica), those four being the Roman Empire, the Arsacid Parthian Empire, the Han Dynasty of China and the Kushanshahs of Central Asia and Hindustan. There is a reason cities such as Antioch declined so rapidly. The 'Asian' trade that did reach the Islamic world was through the Persian Gulf and less commonly, the Red Sea (once more, look at the decline of Aksum, Berenice, Himyar, Aden and Alexandria as examples of this decline in the Red Sea trade).
     
    Pressedflowers likes this.