Byzantine Empire in WWI

TheHomer

Banned
What if the Byzantine Empire never fell to the Ottomans, instead manages to cling on to Greece and Western Anatolia, and ITT WWI still somehow happens which side does it join the Allies or the Central Powers.
 
It's impossible to say. There's far too much that would have changed over 461 years that would completely change the course of European history.

If I had to take a guess though, assuming we put a butterfly net in place I would have to guess that they would most likely side with the Axis like the Ottomans did, as any Byzantine Emperor would likely want to expand into the Balkans and would perhaps be willing to cooperate with Austria-Hungary at least initially in this, and would very much like to reduce the influence of the British in the Middle East. It could go the other way though, if say the Byzantines saw the Austro-Hungarians as bitter rivals for the same territory and the British were willing to say, offer to return Cyprus and support Byzantine influence in the Middle East and the rest of Anatolia in exchange for military cooperation.

I still think the Axis would be more likely, given the butterfly net.
 

Deleted member 67076

Gotta detail the changes that led to Byzantium surviving. That state could end up as anything from a gunpowder empire with huge liquidity (AKA like China) to a semi feudalistic Dynastic state ala France to a number of many other variations.

One thing is certain however, it will not be remotely similar to the Ottomans in governance and its interactions with Europe, and that alone ensures the position of the Ottomans during WW1 is highly unlikely to be replicated.
 
What do you mean by "the Byzantine Empire surviving?" Does Greece retaking Constantinople and renaming itself Rhomania count? That seems like the only remotely plausible way for a "Byzantine Empire" to be involved in World War I.
 
The only (and I mean only) way I can see this being possible in the way the OP seems to intend, is a Vassal Byzantines scenario - i.e. The Roman Empire exists in the Morea, that is it - and has been successful in surviving its term as a vassal state under the Ottomans.

Applying that butterfly net - I'd probably say that they'd start off with the Ottomans in the Continental Powers, but when the war goes the way of the Allies, I expect they'd be a prime target to woo - at which point the Morea becomes a major staging ground in the Eastern Med, and the Byzantines join the Entente and are left in the interesting position Post-War of being the guys who have to deal with the Middle East - given Greece, Constantinople, Western Anatolia and at a push the S or N.Anatolian coasts for their efforts.

However, they may take an opportunity with the Balfour Declaration to nip alt-Sykes-Picot in the bud. By agreeing to hold up the Balfour Declaration, and ensure the diplomatic promises made by Britain and France are maintained, in exchange for holding the mandates themselves. (Probably leading to the Romans leading a Federation of sorts, or an alliance network - probably the latter).

All the Romans need to do in terms of getting their hands dirty is solve the Israel-Palestine question before it arises. In this case likely moving them en-mass to some other territory, perhaps a long one between Gaza and Lake Bardawil.

The advantage for Britain and France here is they still basically get to tell the Romans (and thus the Middle East Alliance) what to do, but don't get the direct flak for it. Instead that goes to the Romans. Meanwhile the internal politics of that group would be peculiar.

As for WW2... uh... I'm not entirely sure it'd be started by the Germans, but by some Damn Fool Thing in the Middle East instead. But considering the Romans are basically dependent on France, Britain and Russia - I find the idea they'd be on the side of the Axis peculiar.
 
If Ottomans didn't conquer Byzantine Empire, WW1 doesn't happen in shape similiar to OTL.

After all, WW1 immediate reason for starting was antagonism between Serbia and Austria-Hungary.

ITTL A-H won't exist - Hungarians joined Habsburg domain because of Ottoman threat - which ITTL doesn't exist. So instead of Austria-Hungary there would be independent Hungary, probably Bohemia too and Austria - if the latter are not a part of Germany.

Also, there's no conflict between Russia (or Lithuania or Poland-Lithuania) and Byzantine Empire.

Possible surviving Byzantine Empire enemies are:

1) Serbia and Bulgaria - or Hungary if Byzantines reconquer those countries.

2) Neapol/Sicily/Venezia/Italy

3) Regime centered in Egypt (Mamelucs or their replacement)

4) Regime centered in Mesopotamia/Iran (local dynasty)
 
How does history progress to a point where anything remotely resembling WWI happens if there's no Ottoman invasion of Europe?

Perhaps that could be replaced with a resurgent Empire beginning a great Imperial Reconquest?

That and a more aggressively antagonistic Greek Orthodox Church could play such a similar role to the Ottomans that it could minimize butterflies.
 

trajen777

Banned
so many variables here :

The best is no 1204. You have a metropolis with enormous wealth. In 1204 you have the Byz empire at one of its most wealthy times. However you had that wealth with the people and the gov had not created a good way to capture this wealth effectively in taxes because of poor leadership. So lets say they pay off, or defeat, or the 1204 conquest never happens. Then you have a good position for sooner or later an effective leader. Much of the renaissance was driven by the fleeing Byzantines to Italy. You have a weaker Italy. One of the reasons the Ottomans did so well in their conquests of the other Turkish states was their adaption of infantry and gun powder. I would see the Byz to replace them in this aspect. Perhaps the Mongols destroy the Turks in Anatolia (which happened) and the Niceian empire (which is now the Byz empire) can conquer the rest of Anatolia. Or if not as gunpowder weapons become more wide spread then they capture Anatolia in the 1400's. Either way you need to capture Anatolia as a secure border to the mountains. So if you capture Anatolia, keep Bulgaria and Greece, and survive till 1400's, then you are in good shape to survive till WW1. If so your enemies would prob be the AH. And you would have a good relationship with Russia and prob GB.
 
How would be the relation of the Byzantine Empire with the Islamic Republic of Iran?
That’s if the Islamic Republic of Iran still even exists in this ATL. The butterflies from the survival of the Byzantine Empire would, IMO, make the world unrecognizable.
 
The only (and I mean only) way I can see this being possible in the way the OP seems to intend, is a Vassal Byzantines scenario - i.e. The Roman Empire exists in the Morea, that is it - and has been successful in surviving its term as a vassal state under the Ottomans.

Applying that butterfly net - I'd probably say that they'd start off with the Ottomans in the Continental Powers, but when the war goes the way of the Allies, I expect they'd be a prime target to woo - at which point the Morea becomes a major staging ground in the Eastern Med, and the Byzantines join the Entente and are left in the interesting position Post-War of being the guys who have to deal with the Middle East - given Greece, Constantinople, Western Anatolia and at a push the S or N.Anatolian coasts for their efforts.

However, they may take an opportunity with the Balfour Declaration to nip alt-Sykes-Picot in the bud. By agreeing to hold up the Balfour Declaration, and ensure the diplomatic promises made by Britain and France are maintained, in exchange for holding the mandates themselves. (Probably leading to the Romans leading a Federation of sorts, or an alliance network - probably the latter).

All the Romans need to do in terms of getting their hands dirty is solve the Israel-Palestine question before it arises. In this case likely moving them en-mass to some other territory, perhaps a long one between Gaza and Lake Bardawil.

The advantage for Britain and France here is they still basically get to tell the Romans (and thus the Middle East Alliance) what to do, but don't get the direct flak for it. Instead that goes to the Romans. Meanwhile the internal politics of that group would be peculiar.

As for WW2... uh... I'm not entirely sure it'd be started by the Germans, but by some Damn Fool Thing in the Middle East instead. But considering the Romans are basically dependent on France, Britain and Russia - I find the idea they'd be on the side of the Axis peculiar.

Even that seems unlikely, given the effects no Greek War of Independence has on the Ottomans. No Auspicious Incident?
 
I don't know what that is. But I can't see an extant Roman empire not being game to entertain the idea.

But the whole scenario is tenuois to achieve in any case
The dissolution of the Janissaries by the reformist Sultan, although in retrospect I don't know that the Greek war of Independence would actually affect it since it had been in the offing for a while. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auspicious_Incident. Point is, even a vassalized Morea will have major effects. Now a more interesting/doable possibility is a Greek Revolt that positions itself as a neo-Byzantine Empire, although you would need a different impetus to the revolt.
 
The dissolution of the Janissaries by the reformist Sultan, although in retrospect I don't know that the Greek war of Independence would actually affect it since it had been in the offing for a while. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auspicious_Incident. Point is, even a vassalized Morea will have major effects. Now a more interesting/doable possibility is a Greek Revolt that positions itself as a neo-Byzantine Empire, although you would need a different impetus to the revolt.

Thanks!

It would have major effects, probaby involving how the Roman Millet operates, but given the circumstances and OP, I'd say quiet compliance and development of the Roman purpose. Externally I'm not sure what it'd change.

I do like the idea of a Greek NeoRoman Empire, I discussed it working with a Romania Classicist movement to form an empire. However, I'm trying to maintain a legal continuity via the titles. I wouldn't call a NeoRoman revolt the Empire restored. It'd be like the NeoHellenists or NeoKemtics IMO. It would need some institution to tie it back. The Patriarch is important, but not the same as Baselius or Despot.
 
The dissolution of the Janissaries by the reformist Sultan, although in retrospect I don't know that the Greek war of Independence would actually affect it since it had been in the offing for a while. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auspicious_Incident. Point is, even a vassalized Morea will have major effects. Now a more interesting/doable possibility is a Greek Revolt that positions itself as a neo-Byzantine Empire, although you would need a different impetus to the revolt.
How would you make the Greeks revolt, create a Roman state instead of a Hellenic one and still be succesful enough to recapture Constantinople before World War 1 though? I don't think the Great Powers would be as inclined to support Roman rebels, one because they wouldn't be proponents of the Classicist movement in Europe and two because a Roman state would technically have a small claim to loads of Western Europe.

This seems like a difficult scenario to create.
 
Better question is: how would a surviving Hittite Empire handle ISIS and the refugee crisis of 2015?

No offense, but this thread is just silly :)
 
Better question is: how would a surviving Hittite Empire handle ISIS and the refugee crisis of 2015?

No offense, but this thread is just silly :)

It is in a way. There are far too many butterflies in general, but it isn't implausible, only unlikely.

BUT - there are very narrow ways to approach the question. It isn't quite as absurdly handwavey as ISIS vs Hittites. (We all know that the Hittites would win hands down of course :p )
 
Top