Byzantine Empire with these borders by the modern day?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Byzantium.png


The POD can be no earlier than 600 AD.

  1. How powerful would this Byzantium be on the world stage?
  2. Could Greek replace French as the prestige language of Europe?
  3. What do you see being the major cities of this empire in the modern day?
  4. Would such a strong Eastern Roman Empire delay or accelerate a renaissance in Europe?
  5. With such a long time for the populace to assimilate, would the majority of the empire speak Greek as their first language, or would local languages remain prevalent?
  6. Would the many regions in this empire be able to develop to the same level of prosperity seen in Western Europe in OTL?
  7. What effect would this surviving Rome have on the development of Christianity?
 
View attachment 409514

The POD can be no earlier than 600 AD.

  1. How powerful would this Byzantium be on the world stage?
  2. Could Greek replace French as the prestige language of Europe?
  3. What do you see being the major cities of this empire in the modern day?
  4. Would such a strong Eastern Roman Empire delay or accelerate a renaissance in Europe?
  5. With such a long time for the populace to assimilate, would the majority of the empire speak Greek as their first language, or would local languages remain prevalent?
  6. Would the many regions in this empire be able to develop to the same level of prosperity seen in Western Europe in OTL?
  7. What effect would this surviving Rome have on the development of Christianity?

1. Quiet strong in best altough not world power due its lack of direct connections to oceans. But it could be one of most powerful nations in Eastern Europe and Mediterranean.
2. I doubt that Greek could replace French in whole Europe but probably Greek could be important language in Orthodox world.
3. Constanstinople, Alexandria surely. Jerusalem, Damascos are too possible. Perhaps Athens could get some prominence.
4. Surch empire might delay reneissance but there is much of butteflies around.
5. Greek would be major language but there would be some local languages too. Probably Aramaic and Coptic are still spoken but it depends would Roman Empire take nationalistic politics with language.
6. Probably but only if the empire manages modernise its economy system.
 
View attachment 409514

The POD can be no earlier than 600 AD.

  1. How powerful would this Byzantium be on the world stage?
  2. Could Greek replace French as the prestige language of Europe?
  3. What do you see being the major cities of this empire in the modern day?
  4. Would such a strong Eastern Roman Empire delay or accelerate a renaissance in Europe?
  5. With such a long time for the populace to assimilate, would the majority of the empire speak Greek as their first language, or would local languages remain prevalent?
  6. Would the many regions in this empire be able to develop to the same level of prosperity seen in Western Europe in OTL?
  7. What effect would this surviving Rome have on the development of Christianity?


1. They have potential to be quite powerful, IMO. They control the Black Sea straits and very possibly trade between western Europe and the East, especially with good trade route to India. And if they built something like the Suez Canal, their income would be quite impressive. They also have some natural resources, especially if they control Libyan oilfields; they can also have a number of allies/satelite states around them with common religion (Orthodoxy), another source of raw resources. Of course it all depends on the strength and competency of the rulers. But since they managed to keep all those lands, they are probably quite good.
2. Possible. With POD so early there might be no French langauge as we know it at all, and of course the French might never become so popular.
3. Historical centers, like Constantinople and Alexandria are pretty much a sure bet, thanks to their location; possibly Antioch and Damascus, Jersualem, for religious reasons. Athens perhaps as a kind of univeristy city; some city in the western part of the empire, maybe Split in OTL Croatia?
4. Hard to say. The Bizantines can provide the West with thousands of ancient books (both Greek and Latin), advanced architecture, science etc., so they can directly influence western Europe and be the beacon of culture, a model for many ambiotious rulers in the west.
5. I think most of them would be bilingual. Greek as a common language of the empire and local langauge would coexist for quite some time. However IMO Greek, as a language of culture, administration, politics and science seriously influence local languages and in time might eliminate some of them.
6. I do not see why not. Again, that depends on the competency of their rulers. They have everything they need.
7. The Orthodoxy might be stronger than IOTL and possibly dominant version of Christianity. The soft power of eastern Rome would be very significant.
 
Some rough statistics to work with allowing for massive changes brought about by butterflies, (assuming negative changes counteracted by enough positive changes to cause result similar to OTL)
Population: around 296 million (4th)
Area: 3.54 million km2 (7th)
GDP (nominal): 2.030 Trillion USD (9th)
GDP per Capita: $6856 (around 80th)
 
the best way would first have Justina be much smarter and not want to rebuild the Roman empire second Arab invasion fail and no deadly sasssiands wars
 
View attachment 409514

The POD can be no earlier than 600 AD.

  1. How powerful would this Byzantium be on the world stage?
  2. Could Greek replace French as the prestige language of Europe?
  3. What do you see being the major cities of this empire in the modern day?
  4. Would such a strong Eastern Roman Empire delay or accelerate a renaissance in Europe?
  5. With such a long time for the populace to assimilate, would the majority of the empire speak Greek as their first language, or would local languages remain prevalent?
  6. Would the many regions in this empire be able to develop to the same level of prosperity seen in Western Europe in OTL?
  7. What effect would this surviving Rome have on the development of Christianity?

1. Very
2. Yes
3. Istanbul, Thessalonica, Alexandria, Damascus, Jerusalem
4. Delay
5. Yes. Greek becomes universal
6. No
7. It would be under state control. No freedom of worship. More oppression.
 

Marc

Donor
View attachment 409514

The POD can be no earlier than 600 AD.

  1. How powerful would this Byzantium be on the world stage?
  2. Could Greek replace French as the prestige language of Europe?
  3. What do you see being the major cities of this empire in the modern day?
  4. Would such a strong Eastern Roman Empire delay or accelerate a renaissance in Europe?
  5. With such a long time for the populace to assimilate, would the majority of the empire speak Greek as their first language, or would local languages remain prevalent?
  6. Would the many regions in this empire be able to develop to the same level of prosperity seen in Western Europe in OTL?
  7. What effect would this surviving Rome have on the development of Christianity?
Not to be too cynical, but an alternative case, and as likely for the same long term reasons, it would be most similar to the Ottoman Empire circa early 1900's.
Far too many variables, and a surety of massive butterflies. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
1. Very
2. Yes
3. Istanbul, Thessalonica, Alexandria, Damascus, Jerusalem
4. Delay
5. Yes. Greek becomes universal
6. No
7. It would be under state control. No freedom of worship. More oppression.
Could you expand on #4? I often see others share this same opinion, yet I've never quite understood it. Assuming that a strong and stable empire is able to prevent the schism, is it not possible that there could eventually be a peaceful exchange of knowledge between them and Western Europe?
 
Regarding #2, it may depend on the religious situation.

If there is still a religious split between Catholic and Orthodox, the former would probably still prefer Latin.

If there is no schism and the Roman argument prevails (Constantinople accepts the authority of the bishop of Rome) that would also presumably favor Latin as lingua franca, although Greek would be commonly learned as well.

Conversely, if there is no schism and Constantinople prevails, so that there is no single person at the head of the church, perhaps Greek prevails? Especially if the Romance languages still emerge, which seems likely with a POD of 600 or later.

The role of French ITTL is hard to say, being so far in the future.
 
Could you expand on #4? I often see others share this same opinion, yet I've never quite understood it. Assuming that a strong and stable empire is able to prevent the schism, is it not possible that there could eventually be a peaceful exchange of knowledge between them and Western Europe?

Because during its 1,000 years of existence, Byzantine civilisation produced not a single cultural or scientific innovation worthy of note. (edit - that's not to say they achieved nothing of value. Their artistic work was marvellous. But I'm talking about scientific advancement and innovation).

There would be no renaissance in a scenario where Byzantium holds those territories. The specific circumstances that gave rise to it (the Arab conquests, rise of Charlemagne, the Muslim golden age, the crusades, the rise of the Italian states) would not exist.

Byzantium was not an innovative or meritocratic society. It was an autocracy, with state control over everything, a parasitic nobility, a very oppressive church enforcing religious persecution at every opportunity, and few real cities or much economic development for most of its history.

Such a conservative, predominantly rural and religiously authoritarian Christian state was never going to compete with the Islamic world in enlightenment and scientific research, nor the western European states, which were highly competitive, well organised and a powerhouse of new ideas.
 
Last edited:
Because during its 1,000 years of existence, Byzantine civilisation produced not a single cultural or scientific innovation worthy of note.
Except for architecture, hospitals, urology, the precursors of Galileian fall mechanics, the theory of impetus, shipbuilding, grenades, the Justinian legal code, Byzantine humanism, among others. Yeah, the truly decadent Eastern Empire.
 
Because during its 1,000 years of existence, Byzantine civilisation produced not a single cultural or scientific innovation worthy of note.

There would be no renaissance in a scenario where Byzantium holds those territories. The specific circumstances that gave rise to it (the Arab conquests, rise of Charlemagne, the Muslim golden age, the crusades, the rise of the Italian states) would not exist.

Byzantium was not a creative, innovative nor meritocratic society. It was an autocracy, with state control over everything, a parasitic nobility, a very oppressive church enforcing religious persecution at every opportunity, and few real cities or much economic development for most of its history.

Such a regressive, predominantly rural and fundamentalist Christian state was never going to compete with the Islamic world in enlightenment and scientific research, nor the western European states, which were highly competitive, well organised and a powerhouse of new ideas.
You now who none of the so called Arab innovations and discoveries was truly work of an Arab and the religion of the majority of them were not Islam?
Bizantium was much more advanced than Islam and keeping Islam away from the lands who were in the Eastern Roman Empire will not stop the discoveries realized in that countries.
Plus the European Middle Age and the empire Byzantium were not really the autocratic and regressive times of the myth and the Reinassance was no way near to be a such big break with the past as was depicted by everyone (starting from the men of that time).
A strong Byzantium will facilitate the commercial and cultural exchanges between countries and would facilitate a bigger diffusion of the Greek (who will be a step behind Latin as pretstige language but still well know in every court) and considering who in this situation the OTL intermediation of Arab between Greek and Latin will not be needed here I think the Reinassance will be accelerated instead of delayed
 
Except for architecture, hospitals, urology, the precursors of Galileian fall mechanics, the theory of impetus, shipbuilding, grenades, the Justinian legal code, Byzantine humanism, among others. Yeah, the truly decadent Eastern Empire.
Oh, yes... 90% of the so called Arab discoveries were truly Greek in origin, arrived in Europe trough Arabs or made by Christians living under Arab's dominion (who so had Islamic names but were not followers of Islam)
 
You now who none of the so called Arab innovations and discoveries was truly work of an Arab and the religion of the majority of them were not Islam?
Bizantium was much more advanced than Islam and keeping Islam away from the lands who were in the Eastern Roman Empire will not stop the discoveries realized in that countries.
Plus the European Middle Age and the empire Byzantium were not really the autocratic and regressive times of the myth and the Reinassance was no way near to be a such big break with the past as was depicted by everyone (starting from the men of that time).
A strong Byzantium will facilitate the commercial and cultural exchanges between countries and would facilitate a bigger diffusion of the Greek (who will be a step behind Latin as pretstige language but still well know in every court) and considering who in this situation the OTL intermediation of Arab between Greek and Latin will not be needed here I think the Reinassance will be accelerated instead of delayed

Please enlighten me as to how the polity where we derive the word “autocrat” was not actually autocratic? “αὐτοκράτωρ, autokrátor” was a term invented to describe Roman and Byzantine style absolutist rule.

I’m also inclined to disagree that “90% of all Arab inventions are stolen.” Do you have any evidence to back up the claim?
 
Please enlighten me as to how the polity where we derive the word “autocrat” was not actually autocratic? “αὐτοκράτωρ, autokrátor” was a term invented to describe Roman and Byzantine style absolutist rule.

I’m also inclined to disagree that “90% of all Arab inventions are stolen.” Do you have any evidence to back up the claim?
The Byzantines often referred to themselves not as the Basileia (“Empire”), but as the Politeia, which is the Greek form of Res Publica, which means Republic. If you’re going to use the imperial title as an argument for Byzantine absolutism, you shouldn’t ignore that the Byzantines frequently described their state and government as a republic, naming their country the Polity of the Romans.

Was Byzantium an authoritarian state? Of course it was, it was a medieval monarchy. Was it an absolutist state founded upon the divine right of kings? Absolutely not. Such is a 19th century construct that came to being as a way to legitimize the Enlightenment and the new nation states grounded on political liberalism. In truth the Byzantine monarch was not an absolute ruler. He was bound by a certain degree of constitutionalism and his mandate to rule came from popular sovereignty. The Byzantines understood the imperial office as a public office first and foremost, which means that they understood that the Emperors had obligations to the citizens of the Politeia and were accountable before them. Naturally imperial discourse tried to discredit this idea by investing in the divine right narrative, but it wasn’t always successful. The republican nature of the Byzantine monarchy survived even 1204. For example, if you’re interested, have a lot at the many debates between Nikephoros Blemmydes and Emperor Theodore II Laskaris in the 13th century.

To quote Anthony Kaldellis:

"Part of the problem stems from the origins of Byzantine Studies as a field of research. In western Europe, this research took place within the ideological parameters set by many political and religious institutions that had a stake in the Roman legacy. Since early medieval times the Byzantine claim to Rome had been rejected and polemically denied. The field of Byzantine Studies inherited the claims of that polemic as obvious facts and so had to devise ways of referring to the eastern Roman empire that were different from what it called itself. Thus we have been saddled with “the empire of the Greeks,” “the empire of Constantinople,” and “Byzantium,” for Rome proper belonged to the (Latin) West."

"Most of the misunderstandings about Byzantium that I seek to correct were set in place before the lifetime of any scholar now alive. Scholars today may have their own reasons for repeating them, but they did not invent them. These core notions of ours about Byzantium, however, were not established by rigorous scholarly methods to begin with, were never actually “proven,” and have not been subjected to critical scrutiny in modern times. Some, including the denial of the Byzantines’ Roman identity, have been handed down to us from ages before the emergence of academic scholarship, and their origins are linked to political and religious interests that we would disown as historians, if only we knew of them."
 
Last edited:
The Byzantines often referred to themselves not as the Basileia (“Empire”), but as the Politeia, which is the Greek form of Res Publica, which means Republic. If you’re going to use the imperial title as an argument for Byzantine absolutism, you shouldn’t ignore that the Byzantines frequently described their state and government as a republic, naming their country the Polity of the Romans.

This may be true, but this can be simply classed as a remnant of their Roman forefathers. Describing ones self as a republic really has no bearing on defining the actually political systems of the day.
Augustus went through great pains to disguise his military autocracy as preserving republican institutions and the Imperator simply being a public office, not being a king. With hindsight and primary sources, I think we can agree that even the Principate was a disguised autocracy.

Then you reach the Dominate period of the Empire. After the reforms of Diocletian, the Romans abandoned all republican pretenses. Men prostrated themselves and groveled at the emperors feet, and the emperor was carefully kept behind many layers of palaces and guards to enhance his majesty.
The Byzantines were the heirs of the Dominate and it played a large part in their autocratic governance. The Emperor ruled from the center and designated orders to his subordinates. The pretenses of republicanism was definitely kept alive, but purely as tradition. The Roman senate and consular system survived on in Byzantium, but the weight it carried was fairly insignificant and this only got worse the longer the Empire carried on.

I think it’s a pretty interesting argument as the Politeia certainly had its traditions rooted in the Byzantine psyche, but so did Military absolutism. An interesting article on the topic I enjoyed reading can be found here.

Theres an argument to be made, but I think @isabella can easily be disproven when they say that the Byzantines were “not really autocratic.”
 
Oh, yes... 90% of the so called Arab discoveries were truly Greek in origin, arrived in Europe trough Arabs or made by Christians living under Arab's dominion (who so had Islamic names but were not followers of Islam)

I know the name of this forum is "Alternate History.com", but you truly appear to live in a different universe. One in which established facts are irrelevant and fantasy becomes reality. Sure, the Byzantines could ride on dinosaur backs and shoot laser bolts from their eyes too.... right. Good luck to you.

I created an account here called "Byzantine fanatic", because I was interested in the Byzantine Empire for more than 20 years. I'm not going to go into the years I spent studying them academically, because I think that would be vulgar. I came here to discuss history, not boast about my credentials. But for the record, I have spent years studying with scholars who have published academic works on Byzantine history, and my final project (on the Byzantine Empire) was awarded a First at my place of study (which by the way is one of the top educational centres in my country). I don't like to talk like this, but when confronted with such utterly specious nonsense, purporting to defend Byzantine history, you do the whole subject and yourself a disservice.

Much as I like Byzantine history, I'm not going to pretend the empire and its culture was something it wasn't. Even Mark Whittow in his book on Byzantium acknowledges that Byzantium was nowhere near as powerful as its Arab neighbours in the 9th century (the period his book begins). The mere survival of the empire for so long, against all the odds, is impressive enough. The reality is Byzantium was a largely static, non-innovative, deeply conservative culture and their achievements were more in the artistic and cultural sphere, than in the scientific. One can point to the religious history, the mosaic art, even the Cyrillic script, among their more lasting influences.
 
Last edited:
Post 600, huh? Well, that leaves out the most obvious 'Justinian stays home' POD. I guess that leaves two main POD eras: a high Byzantine reconquesta under the Macedonians or (less likely) a more successful Komnenid dynasty, or an early pre-Islam POD under either Maurice or Heraclius. I'm gonna go with Maurice because A: it's probably the easiest and B: I'm a late antiquity junkie.

So for whatever reason Maurice avoids Phocas's blade. Maybe he escapes and rallies support, or maybe he just avoids the whole thing by not stationing his forces north of the Danube for the winter. He cuts his losses and continues to let the Exarchates fall away; whether or not he lets one of his sons become the western emperor is immaterial; by the end of the eighth century there's really nothing left. Ravenna has fallen as per OTL and Africa is independent and currently being swallowed up by the Berbers. Maurice and his successors keep Dalmatia though because it's a useful buffer. The Pope looks to the Franks as per OTL, but the lack of Iconoclasm is probably going to butterfly a Germanic western emperor, especially if Maurice's offspring are still clinging to life in Syracuse or Carthage when it happens. On the other hand, you're still going to have issues between the east and west churches thanks to the Monophysites and the east's continued waffling and attempted compromise. Eventually there will either be a definitive split between east and west or an Egyptian rebellion (also likely!). But the East does have four of the five Patriarchs and the Holy Land, so it has rather powerful cards in its favor.

Byzantium won't be the focalpoint of European culture due to religious and political scisims; to do that you'd need an earlier 'no Justinian' POD so that the fiction of Byzantine hegemony is maintained for longer. But hopefully it won't be as bad as OTL. The east might not even ever be really delegitimized in the eyes of the west.

With the Sassanid war cancelled though, it's likely the next conflict with them will be just another border war--and probably won't be until Maurice passes, at least. This leaves the empire more than capable of dealing with the continued Slavic threat and holding the Danube frontier.

Basically, the empire survives. It's touch and go for a bit, but with a string of mildly competent emperors it manages to pull itself out of the hole Justinian put them in. An Arab invasion, if it happens, is repulsed and after a few key defeats against both empires, the movement fractures and dissolves. So, rather than a typical Byzantine Empire we have a post-classical Roman Empire that keeps many of its traditions as well as its trans-Mediterranean urban culture. Many things will still progress similarly to OTL: Orthodox art evolves recognizably, the church continues to increase its dominance, Diocletian's reforms reach their endgame (though, perhaps not to the same extent). The empire is a rich, urban, centralized and autocratic state with a highly effective and adaptative military. Assuming it survives the challenges of the seventh century and doesn't do anything stupid (we might need a string of emperors to disavow the idea of retaking the west), it is in a perfect place to dominate the majority of the Middle Ages.

After that is when things become more...complicated. No Ottomans means no immediate need to find an alternative to the Silk Road--but someone's eventually going to find the Americas and pillage it anyway, it just might be a bit later. An alternative age of colonization is tricky for Byzantium. It's a Medditeranean power, that they tended to decline in relevance once the Atlantic was open season. They could, as so many TLs on here have decided, try their hand at the Indian Ocean, but they're still not super well placed for that.

Byzantium risks turning into an ATL Ottoman state, slowly losing ground to the Europeans as the west colonizes and industralizes, instead becoming increasingly 'backwards' and irrelevant as it continues its pointless border wars with Iran. Eventually nationalist feelings will threaten to overwhelm the state and it will be hard-pressed to keep itself together. The European powers allow it to cling to life because A: it's the Roman Empire (and they have more respect for it in this TL) and B: like the Ottomans, it's a useful counterweight to the ambitions of the other European states.

But there is always the chance that something else happens, and honestly in order to keep those borders to together the modern day, I would argue it almost has to happen: revolution. Either a swing towards a constitutional monarchy (could be fun) or a full on communist revolution. Seeing as how it's an Eastern European monarchy however, I doubt it'll be peaceful.

(Interestingly though, the Senate probably isn't reduced to irrelevance by reforms in the tenth century, so they might be a starting place for republicanism--as an idea if nothing else, since it IS still a rich old man club.)

So, onto the questions.

1: How powerful is it on the world stage? Assuming it's not a mortibund Ottoman counterpart, it's a powerful regional state that's long been eclipsed by the modern-day superpowers. It essentially owns the Middle East (or co-owns, if Iran has kept up), and no one else is going to be able to touch it. It's got allies in ATL Russia and probably most of Eastern Europe (Byzantium is to Russia as our UK is to our US?). If it had colonies, it probably doesn't anymore, especially if we're assuming this world is somewhat recognizable to our own, just with different countries.

2: There's a solid chance, but far from certain. But as I've said, with a POD this late I don't see Byzantium becoming the focalpoint of Europe, and I still see a Frankish empire remaking Western Europe in its image (just without imperial legitimacy). If Greek IS the language of diplomacy, it may very well find itself replaced once the western powers start building global empires.

3: Constantinople, obviously. The other three Patriarchs remain relevant as well; Antioch, Jerusalem, and especially Alexandria as the empire's second city. Other major places include Thessalonica, Trebizond, Edessa, Damascus, and I really like the idea of Athens as a university city. Rhodes? Pergamon? Adrianople? Ephesus probably holds out longer than in OTL, but eventually the loss of its harbor is the death of it. There's probably a few smaller Egyptian metropoli. If the empire has avoided devastating invasions, then I'd expect some high urbanization. Lots of cities.

4: With POD of 602, I'm not sure you'll get a Renaissance as per OTL. There's never really a 'rediscovery' of classical texts as they've all kind of just been trickling back into Western Europe over the course of the Middle Ages. Combine that with the loss of the Muslim Golden Age, Byzantine scholars not fleeing the Ottomans, and many OTL events we take for granted not happening...if it does happen and isn't just a gradual thing, I'd say delayed.

Or maybe the West doesn't have one at all. They're blocked off from the east, and sort of on the periphery of the trade routes. Maybe a Renaissance happens in the empire instead and it trickles out from there; the empire was always very good at taking ideas from others and adapting them for their own survival.

5: Greek was always the lingua franca of the East. Like, I don't see every other language disappearing, but Greek is going to be taught in school; ESPECIALLY in the case of a Communist state or an empire that's intentionally tried to cultivate a singular nationalism.

6: I don't see why not. But as we've seen on this post, that's because anything could happen. If the empire has good luck and makes good choices, it's in a good place to become a prosperous first world country. On the other hand, it's very easy for it to become a true Sick Man of Europe (but then, I can't see it surviving).

A wealthy constitutional republic where the imperial family is the ultimate tourist trap is a fun idea, but so is a wealthy China-esque dystopia with social credit scores and heavy censorship.

(Hmm. I kind of want to do a highway map now.)

7: I think I've sort of mused on this already, but I think you're going to see a Christianity that doesn't ever formally break. There's going to be a difference between east and west, but even with the Monophysites (who I think the empire will eventually attempt to extinguish in order to please the west), there's not going to be anything that puts blood in the water. Iconoclasm never happens, nor does the Fourth Crusade, nor do the other Patriarchs fall. The Pope might pretend to be first among equals in the west, but he still addresses his eastern counterparts with the respect they deserve.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top