Byzantine Balkans and the Middle East to the Modern Day: Would they fare far better?

[Silver01]

A Byzantium that is not distracted in the east would probably throw around its weight a lot more in the west, so in such a scenario catholic-orthodox relations could end up cooling down a lot. My own favoured scenario is for Great Moravia to be converted from Constantinople, with the Moravians in turn converting the other Slavs and them converting the Swedes, so that the border between Latin West and Greek East is formed by the Elbe and Oresund.

To prevent the HRE you have to prevent Charlemagne being crowned by the pope and if that happens, Byzantium probably maintains its prestige.

those are valid options for the 8th century with say a weaker arab / no first bulgarian empire scenarios post Basil II tho thats the problem
but still your pod is interesting since its like a true divide of western and eastern Europe in the middle ages.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

well a post 1025 pod means the byzantines still have souther italy (they could of course loose in the late 11th or later centuries when focusing on the east) but i see expansion in to italy as really hard since the papacy hre and others would not like that.

I mean Manuel Komnenos basically bankrolled the Lombard League against the Hohenstaufens. An Empire with competent leadership post 1025 would be easily positioned to retain its status as the premier power in all Christendom without doing much.

To prevent the HRE you have to prevent Charlemagne being crowned by the pope and if that happens, Byzantium probably maintains its prestige.

Well the Pope at one point offered Manuel the Imperial crown hence his invasion into Southern Italy and alliance against the Normans with the Papacy. I can imagine if the Empire retakes Sicily and maintains its foothold in Southern Italy, its probably going to eventually throw its weight around in Western Italy especially since the schism hasn't occurred yet. The Pope might actually reach out to the Eastern Emperor during some controversy with the Holy Roman Emperor.

 

[Silver01]

I mean Manuel Komnenos basically bankrolled the Lombard League against the Hohenstaufens. An Empire with competent leadership post 1025 would be easily positioned to retain its status as the premier power in all Christendom without doing much.


Well the Pope at one point offered Manuel the Imperial crown hence his invasion into Southern Italy and alliance against the Normans with the Papacy. I can imagine if the Empire retakes Sicily and maintains its foothold in Southern Italy, its probably going to eventually throw its weight around in Western Italy especially since the schism hasn't occurred yet. The Pope might actually reach out to the Eastern Emperor during some controversy with the Holy Roman Emperor.

1) true but then again the same empire is going to be busy still fighting the seljuk empire and the fatimids also the mongols when they come and the black death so it would be really easy for them to loose any conquer they make in Italy from 1025 to 1400s until gunpowder comes and makes the east a lesser problem as you know gunpowder would make the nomadic armies null .

as for a controversy i wonder if the pope if something similar to the events of the french king taking the papacy from france there (assuming the ere is not dealing with a nomadic horde or something) then the pope would ask the byzantine emperor for something.

 

[DominusNovus]

If Rhomania survives then in terms of its civic identity for its subjects would be that of Romans. Ethnic nationalism/national identity wasn't really very much a thing in the Empire. Had they retained their latin speaking portions the Empire would for sure be a bilingual state, but they slowly shifted to greek as they were left with a largely greek speaking core region.

If the Empire holds, or is able to regain control of the Balkans/Middle East and Levant, its also likely to expand Westwards. Its very likely that "Italian" (Vulgar Latin) would become a semi-prestige language of sorts due to Italy being the ancient cultural heartland/birthplace of the Empire.

The Ottomans didn’t see themselves as a Turkic state, did they? My point was that if more of the population was Hellenized than was Turkified in our history, an ethnic nation state may evolve, whether the state wants it to or not.

 

[M79]

Give Basil II at least a semi-competent heir or two and avoid Manzkiert. That likely gives a solid century or two of Byzantine rule to Anatolia and most of the Balkans if not the upper Levant, Southern Italy, and likely Sicily.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

well a post 1025 pod means the byzantines still have souther italy (they could of course loose in the late 11th or later centuries when focusing on the east) but i see expansion in to italy as really hard since the papacy hre and others would not like that.

I mean the Papacy was unable to really do much against Norman expansion. Had the Normans been more fortunately they probably could have eaten into papal territory as well, seizing Ancona and maybe bits of the Duchy of Spoletto.

A strong and stable Empire with the Catepanate of Italy bolstered by Sicily would in time be able to re-assert the roman presence in the region.

To prevent the HRE you have to prevent Charlemagne being crowned by the pope and if that happens, Byzantium probably maintains its prestige.

I mean Rhomania still had its prestige. The Carolingian and Ottonian courts basically imitated Roman fashions in Constantinople. Basil II almost arranged a dynastic union with the Holy Roman Emperor. At various points the two Empire cooperated with each other having some sort of mutual understanding with each other.

It was the schism and the sudden fall of Anatolia that really lowered the Empire's prestige in the eyes of the west. Some probably saw the chaos after Manzikert as God punishing the Greeks for their "arrogance/decadence."

Either way what we consider the "modern day" in the world where Rhomania survives and continues its resurgence is basically unrecognizable to us. A good example of this is the dynamics seen in @Basileus444's tl an Age of Miracles.

The development of philosophies/political ideologies are also quite radically changed. The modern notion of the Westminster style Constitutional Monarchy, stemmed from the old feudal customs where the monarch's power's would be limited by his other nobles. The old Germanic Kings after all were elected into power and were ruling theoretically by their consent.

In contrast in Rhomania no such concept really existed. The Empire essentially was a Republican Monarchy where the Emperor and his power was beholden to the "Senate and people of Rome." In practice and by design the Imperial Senate was little more than a ceremonial institution functioning as a glorified city council. Though in periods of crisis it was able to throw in its weight if the Emperor requested its advice, or say the matte of succession needed to be settled. The Emperor in his power was absolute, though he was expected to "obey the laws of the land," providing just government lest he lose the favor of the Romans and find himself deposed.

The Empire would probably keep its autocratic nature in terms of its government without much difficulty. Though Rome surviving would definitely affect the Renaissance which somewhat romanticized the idea of the Roman Republic. Such notions would likely have cold water splashed in the East as the Empire was still the legal continuation of the "Res Publica." I wouldn't be surprised if Roman historians paint it as largely a period of chaos and instability which inevitably led to the rise of the Empire to most effectively manage Rhomania's government and vast territories. As the separation of Church wasn't really a concept within the Empire, the Church would almost certainly be an important pillar in Imperial society and government. The Empire controlling most of the Patriarchates of the Pentarchy would also have a massive effect on Christendom as well. In such a scenario I don't think the schism would ever really come to pass. More likely the Pope might try to ingratiate himself with the Eastern Emperor to better play him and the Holy Roman Emperor off each other to preserve his position and the Papal States' territorial integrity.

The Roman method of succession was a double edged sword simultaneously providing massive boons and massive setbacks to the Empire. Often times decadent rulers or dynasties were overthrown in favor of better ones like the Komnenoi, Macedonians, Heraclians, etc, but it could also lead to chaos like the crapshow that occurred after Emperor Maurice's deposition or even Emperor Andronikos I's deposition. Andronikos while harsh was doing a hard crackdown on aristocratic corruption/decadence occurring among the Imperial Government. This was largely thanks to the deals Alexios I and his successors made with the aristocracy which in the short term provided the Empire quickly needed funds in a time of crisis. But as the Empire's finances recovered in the early 13th Century, these policies were becoming a liability for the government.

The best way for the Romans to survive into the modern day is simply to have them have a long lasting dynasty allowing for its Emperors to gradually initiate a policy of de-facto and finally de-jure hereditary succession. This almost happened in Roman history, but the Macedonians and Heraclians had a great deal of bad luck at the end which could have easily been avoided. Basil II having a son for example, allows the Empire to pass on to a trained heir rather than Basil's idiotic and hedonistic brother. The Macedonians had a massive following among the Empire's subjects. When news reached the ears of the people that Theodora was going to be assassinated, the people stormed the monastery she was in and despite her protests, clothed her in the Imperial purple and coronated her as co-Empress with her sister Zoe. The mob paraded her down to the Imperial palace and demanded that she be reinstated to the throne.

The French Capetians who started off in a pretty horrible position, over the centuries managed to establish stable hereditary succession, so its not implausible to assume that the Romans wouldn't be able to do the same.

 

[Red_Neptune]

I agree with what has been said before that a Byzantine nationalism (if nationalism as we recognise it would even arise in this world) would be far more civic in nature than the ethnic nationalisms that we associate with the region;

Why? The Byzantines - and the Macedonian dynasty especially - hardly saw much use in co-opting other nobilities to rule the state. They annexed both Serbia, conquered Armenia, and abolished the Bulgarian Patriarchate, provoking numerous revolts in the region.

I'm firmly convinced the Ottoman millet system is quite the contributor to the establishment of sectarian and national tensions in the Balkans

How so?

and in a timeline where Romania doesn't fall an equivalent to that system would not arise. The weight that Roman nationalism and its implicit appeal on Roman civilisation would have would serve as a powerful centrifugal force. I dare say such a Byzantium would be more like the US in that it has a certain civilisational ideal at its core than like the average nation-state.

But the Ottomans were themselves a 'powerful centrifugal force' and had a 'civilisational ideal' -- and that hardly prevented them from losing the Balkans in the 19th c. Yes, you could say they were Muslims -- but Greek control over the policies of the Orthodox Church were hardly appealing to all, and indeed provoked issues right up to the 20th century (see, for instance, Bulgarian nationalism, which defined itself in opposition as much to the Greeks as it did to the Ottomans).

well even if we use a 1025 pod by this point the orthodox and catholic churches were split in all but name and The HRE already proclaiming its self emperor of the romans via the pope assuming it does not happen i still do not see the west acknowledge the Byzantines as the romans until the Hre collapses or becomes a decript thing like the post 17th century Hre of the otl the Russians( not western) would definitely acknowledge them and the area of modern romania as well , one thing i was thinking is that a surviving byzantine empire (assuming the schism happens) would create a nasty rounds of civil wars in Hungary from its more pro catholic papacy side vs the more roman following orthodox one

To prevent the HRE you have to prevent Charlemagne being crowned by the pope and if that happens, Byzantium probably maintains its prestige.

The idea that the West did not regard the Byzantines as "true Romans" is a myth. Byzantinism was a phenomenon that arose centuries after Constantinople's conquest; when the 4th Crusade captured Constantinople, the conquering Flemings and Frenchmen merrily announced their assumption of the Imperium Romaniae. And yes, the Papal chancery made a point of addressing the Byzantine emperor as Basileus of the Greeks, but that was merely the strain of local politics. Indeed: when Constantinople fell in 1453, bells rung across Europe mourning the fall of the Roman Empire...

(On a side note, I'm not very sure why so many people see the HRE and Byzantines as being irreconcilable enemies or something because they both had claims over Roman Emperorship -- mediaeval rulers were far less concerned with identity and transitioned between different identities very fluidly).

 

[Silver01]

The idea that the West did not regard the Byzantines as "true Romans" is a myth. Byzantinism was a phenomenon that arose centuries after Constantinople's conquest; when the 4th Crusade captured Constantinople, the conquering Flemings and Frenchmen merrily announced their assumption of the Imperium Romaniae. And yes, the Papal chancery made a point of addressing the Byzantine emperor as Basileus of the Greeks, but that was merely the strain of local politics. Indeed: when Constantinople fell in 1453, bells rung across Europe mourning the fall of the Roman Empire...

(On a side note, I'm not very sure why so many people see the HRE and Byzantines as being irreconcilable enemies or something because they both had claims over Roman Emperorship -- mediaeval rulers were far less concerned with identity and transitioned between different identities very fluidly).

i think its not quite a thing in absolutes many westerns didnt recognize them as the roman empire and did see the HRE as the real roman empire because of the pope they called the byzantine emperor the emperor of the greeks due to traslatio imperii , so yeah but @John7755 يوحنا explains better than me.
as for the Hre and ERE i dont think they would only be enemies due to who was the roman empire but if the ERE intervines more in italy and in the possible fighting for croatia ( if the byzantines conquer it then they have another border)

 

[Chercha]

Why? The Byzantines - and the Macedonian dynasty especially - hardly saw much use in co-opting other nobilities to rule the state. They annexed both Serbia, conquered Armenia, and abolished the Bulgarian Patriarchate, provoking numerous revolts in the region.

How so?

But the Ottomans were themselves a 'powerful centrifugal force' and had a 'civilisational ideal' -- and that hardly prevented them from losing the Balkans in the 19th c. Yes, you could say they were Muslims -- but Greek control over the policies of the Orthodox Church were hardly appealing to all, and indeed provoked issues right up to the 20th century (see, for instance, Bulgarian nationalism, which defined itself in opposition as much to the Greeks as it did to the Ottomans).

Ethnic nationalism, if it were to arise, would go counter to Byzantine interests because it carries the implication that every nation is on some level equal, capable of expressing itself through language, folklore etc. and deserving of such and down that road lie nation-states. Civic nationalism could be used by the Romans as a way to showcase their superiority: their polity is obviously superior, just look at its longevity, etc. etc. The Roman ideal/dream/self-image would have an unique weight compared to that of other nations. The Ottomans might have tried to portray themselves in the same way, but they are too much the 'other' in the mind of the average European, something which the Romans wouldn't be. If they are smart, they lean on civic nationalism (I've earlier compared a succesful Byzantium in this regard with the US).

Whenever nation and religion become so intertwined as in the millets, calamity follows. We define our identities in a large part by contrasting ourselves with others. When similar peoples differences are mainly based on religion, that religion becomes a point of pride and potentially fanaticism. Look not just at the former Yugoslavia, but also at Ireland. Combine that with different millets having their own differing rights and obligations, engendering a sense of competition, as well as 19th century Ottoman attempts to modernise and centralise and no wonder things ended up in a clusterfuck.

 

[Benhur88]

The obvious one is alternative trade routes. Now any PoD where the Romans are able to retain eastern Mediterranean, drastically changes the situation that lead to OTL exploration. The Italian mercantile stranglehold due to their exclusive access to the eastern markets is butterflied. A relatively open market certainly reduces the incentive for Iberian monarchs to fund expensive voyages.
The Middle East retains it's place and the trade incomes which will allow it to remain dynamic and competitive when the Industrial Revolution comes knocking.

I don't think that Roman occupation of the NME would butterfly away the she of exploration. To my knowledge, there were seasonal fishing expeditions off the coast of Newfoundland as early as the 15th century and throughout the 16th. This could have easily lead to further exploration and exploitation. This would have cut into Roman trade revenue, but I think your basic premise is still intact.

 

[ByzantineCaesar]

It should be noted that the Great Navigations weren’t promoted because the Italians were cut off from the Mediterranean spice trade. No, Venice was quite into it. The problem was that Genoa often found itself cut off because of its rivalry with Venice. It was Genoese capital and Genoese navigation skills which propelled Portugal in the early 15th century to seek an alternative route to India, because of Genoese competition with Venice for the spice trade. I often see the fishing trips to Newfoundland mentioned as evidence that colonization would happen, but honestly who cares about fishermen and fishing? Colonization is a massive political enterprise relying on a modern state structure, not fishing trips. The discovery of the Americas was inevitable because Portugal would eventually discover Brazil while trying to circumnavigate Africa, because the South Atlantic oceanic currents lead to Brazil and prevent sailing south along the African coast. Brazil would be made an outpost to the Indian trade. The fact that the Caribbean was supposedly discovered sooner than Brazil was more of a fluke than anything else. Either way, Portuguese rivals will inevitably try to pull a Columbus to find yet another route. The survival of the Byzantine Empire does not alter this kind of interstate trade competition. The Great Navigations will proceed on schedule.