Byzantine Crimea

The Byzantines had some possesions in southern crimea such as the city of Chersonesos. Could Byzantium survive there today if a emperor decided to flee to there? Would it be possible for a Emperor to flee constantinople while under siege to Crimea? Would the Byzantines be able to hold against mongols when they came? Would russia try to annex it if they survived the mongols? Would there be a turkish or other empires interset in the Region? Is there any chance it could survive until today?
 
The Byzantines had some possesions in southern crimea such as the city of Chersonesos. Could Byzantium survive there today if a emperor decided to flee to there? Would it be possible for a Emperor to flee constantinople while under siege to Crimea? Would the Byzantines be able to hold against mongols when they came? Would russia try to annex it if they survived the mongols? Would there be a turkish or other empires interset in the Region? Is there any chance it could survive until today?

Not at all. The area was mainly populated by that time by Turkic steppe nomads and a small minority of Goths and Greeks. Not an optimal location in my opinion.
 
i think in that region they were pagan.

crimea is a highly defensible area by land, and if byzantium can keep some kind of fleet, they might be able to keep the russians out. i think byzantine domains in the region would start out small, but might expand later on. if we are talking about a fleeing byzantine empire after the ottomans took constantinople, i think it holds more clout. there might be a larger population searching to escape ottoman rule (mostly aristocrats and clergy)
 
Do you think a wall of some sort could be used to defend the penninsula? also in the case of consatantinople could the whole population be moved?
 
You Need a Better Roman Constitution

I've been studying this question, and I say persistence til today's not completely impossible (it's been done a few times here), but not so easy, either. You'd have to find a way to get to a better ending constitution than the Roman Empire had, which was a covert absolute monarchy. You need at least one or two checks and balances.

After all, in OTL, Hero of Alexandria's inventions of steam gadgetry and binary state tape went unfollowed-up for a millenia and a half because the Empire was the Empire. Such a better gummint would probably still see developments somewhat slower than OTL post-Renaissance because Rome was a strictly military specialist.

The Roman REPUBLIC was unusually steadily successful at war for century after century. In its enterpreneurial and innovative Republican phase, freedom let war-specialized innovation brought Rome to the lead in miltech and kept there for century after century. Elections chose generally good leadership. The Republic was a wank personified.

Under the Caesars' monarchic rule, all those advantages went away. The man who failed to conquer Germany was a chosen more for his buddyhood to Caesar than his ability to win a vote. By a century or two later, their neighbors had caught up with them in miltech; Roman turf went from quickly growing to slowly decaying; though the borders moved around and even very temporarily grew under Justinian, they overall shrank to nothing. Roman society similarly decayed, growing more static with the centuries. By its fall, it had grown so Talibanesque, its fall was, IMHO, truly a gain to the world.

It ended with their second capital city, Constantinople, being taken by the Turks by better technology - cannon. The cannon were developed by a Christian engineer whom had come to save the city. But the emperor and his court lacked the basic wisdom to value an inventor and treat the cannonmaker decently, and off he went in fury to the much more reasonable Ottomans, and it was bye-bye Roman Empire. That was quite the opposite reaction the high-tech Roman Republic would've had.

So, it can't be done with the kind of Roman Empire we had. You at least need some checks on the Emperor's power, a constitutional monarchy like Rome started with. Better still, IMHO, is to have the much-better, but vulnerable in Caesar's day, Republic-style constitution survive, especially if you want it expand much. The Republic was amended unwisely to allow a more suitable number of men to serve by one Marius, opening up a hole for warlordism (Sulla). Julius Caesar conquered the Republic out of its warlord misery, whille nephew Octavian turned it to absolute monarchy with Republic-like fronting. The Caesars are probably bad material to work with to get a better Rome, since they OTL liked absolute power just fine.

IMHO, it gets pretty improbable to have the constitutional change, whatever it is, happen much after a century after the Octavian Caesar started the Emperor's absolute rule. Back then, there was a feeling that Romans were worse off than under the Republic, but nobody saw a way to get back. Later, people saw the absolute Empire as natural, and the interest in the Republic vanished.

Here are some nice, long threads on how the well=checked Roman Republic fared after it went to unchecked monarchy. Enjoy!
 
Ed: You know what, read your links. Pointless to discuss this with you.
 
Last edited:
jkay, you give the same answer to every question pertinent to the Roman Empire and honestly, it's become tiresome. If people didn't find your argument convincing the first time, they won't find it any more relevent the second, third and fourth times.

But as for a Roman Crimea . . . perhaps if some Emperor had colonised the area some time before the Fourth Crusade; maybe to exert more influence into Russia (maybe there are closer links with Kiev, or perhaps they want to be able to influence the states north of the Bulgars, who might ev useful allies against the Bulgars, Magyars, etc.). If it had a Roman population of a few tens of thousand who formed the social and economic elite, then the Byzantines could fall back to it in times of war.

Its sustainability, however, relies on who controls the Bospherous. If one power controls Anatolia, the Bospherous and a good chunk of the Balkans then the Crimean toe-hold is fairly unsustanable-it can be cut off far too easily and is in effect blockaded. Given this is the situation the Romans found themselves in in 1454, I'd say that its survival is unlikely under these circumstances-it would probably merge with some Russian statelet or get conquered by some Horde.

The alternative, of course, is that the Roman Empire survives-at least in part-for somewhat longer. Maybe it retains Anatolia and the Balkans and uses this springboard to exert more influence in Russia, pushing up the Dniester and Don Rivers. It probably wouldn't get very far as the Empire's population was limited and its armies overstretched, but its possible that a Roman Emperor could use some cunning diplomacy to lever himself into the Throne in Kiev if things go pear-shaped in Constantinople. Maybe a sort of spin-off Roman Empire that's just migrated north?
 
Thanks for the imput! but do you think that for example at the 1453 siege of constaninople the emperor could have fled to Crimea?
No. Crimea had been mostly conquered by Tatars by that time. There was still the Principality of Theodoro (allied with Trebizond and conquered in 1475) and some Genoese cities, but no Byzantine territory.


The question that must be answered is why would an Emperor flee to Crimea? Answer that and you might have the start of a good TL. The disadvantages are that it's not solidly Byzantine, which negates the putative defensibility advantages and that it's a long distance away from Byzantium, hampering efforts to recover the city.
 
No. Crimea had been mostly conquered by Tatars by that time. There was still the Principality of Theodoro (allied with Trebizond and conquered in 1475) and some Genoese cities, but no Byzantine territory.


The question that must be answered is why would an Emperor flee to Crimea? Answer that and you might have the start of a good TL. The disadvantages are that it's not solidly Byzantine, which negates the putative defensibility advantages and that it's a long distance away from Byzantium, hampering efforts to recover the city.

Not to mention that its abandoning one of the major cities of the world. A reknowned capital of trade, culture and religion in one of the best strategic locations ever for what is allbut the arse end of Europe.

Its not a question of survival. When the Ottomans took over the Byzantines weren't all killed. Many of them continued to live under Turkish rule and indeed thrived- it was good to be the centre of a big empire again rather than an embattled city-state.

Byzantine nobles meanwhile who want to flee would be better served heading to friendly foreign courts to try and gain support for a crusade.
Fleeing to Crimea just serves no purpose.
This is the 15th century we're talking about. There's no need for a Taiwan analogue.

A more Greek Crimea that survives past the empire though- that's doable.
Maybe as part of better links between the Greek and Viking worlds.
 
Not to mention that its abandoning one of the major cities of the world. A reknowned capital of trade, culture and religion in one of the best strategic locations ever for what is allbut the arse end of Europe.

Its not a question of survival. When the Ottomans took over the Byzantines weren't all killed. Many of them continued to live under Turkish rule and indeed thrived- it was good to be the centre of a big empire again rather than an embattled city-state.

Byzantine nobles meanwhile who want to flee would be better served heading to friendly foreign courts to try and gain support for a crusade.
Fleeing to Crimea just serves no purpose.
This is the 15th century we're talking about. There's no need for a Taiwan analogue.

A more Greek Crimea that survives past the empire though- that's doable.
Maybe as part of better links between the Greek and Viking worlds.

Many nobles ended up converting into Islam and intermarried with the Ottomans.
 
Top