Colonial Byzantine Empire

It doesn't matter how burgeoning the economy of medieval Europe was, or how supportive the Italians were, shipping supplies and reinforcements thousands of miles on mediaeval boats was going to be a logistical nightmare no matter what.

Medieval Europeans beat everyone, most spectacularly when an eighty year old octogenarian sacked Byzantium's capital and carted away its treasure and a quarter and half a quarter of its empire. I wouldn't presume the Islamic States would have trouble beating Byzantium.

But Frankly, a Byzantine state that's capable of conquering Egypt (or conquering any territory for extended periods) is so different than OTL's Byzantium that it's really hard to say wha tit can do.
 
Medieval Europeans beat everyone, most spectacularly when an eighty year old octogenarian sacked Byzantium's capital and carted away its treasure and a quarter and half a quarter of its empire.

Not on his own, though. :p

Certainly, though, by 1204 Byzantium was on the ropes anyway, even without the Crusader army knocking on their door.

But Frankly, a Byzantine state that's capable of conquering Egypt (or conquering any territory for extended periods) is so different than OTL's Byzantium that it's really hard to say wha tit can do.

Well, the Byzzies did actually conquer/reconquer a fair few territories during their time.
 
Well I wouldn't go calling the Crusades a good example of how easy it was to push the Arabs out of the Levant. Of all the crusades, only the first actually succeeded. The 2nd was basically stillborn, the 3rd failed to achieve their goals and resulted in the death of Barbarossa and the dissolution of his army, the 4th didn't even make it to the holy land and actively sacked Constantinople. After that it gets worse.

The 1st Crusade's success was never replicated, and of the states set up very few lasted a generation, with only Jerusalem holding on by the skin of its teeth before being thrown out down the line. And the resources available to the 1st crusade that made it so successful were not available to the Byzantines of the era; the instantaneous military power of the force from Western Europe was unique. To say that it's proof that the Byzantines could have seized Syria during the time period betrays a deep misunderstanding of what exactly the crusades achieved.
 

Deleted member 67076

I don't know. A bunch of brigands from Normandy conquered Sicily. How'd Byzantium do when it tried to conquer it?
Pretty good until one of the expidition leaders try to betray Manuel.

Medieval Europeans beat everyone, most spectacularly when an eighty year old octogenarian sacked Byzantium's capital and carted away its treasure and a quarter and half a quarter of its empire. I wouldn't presume the Islamic States would have trouble beating Byzantium.

But Frankly, a Byzantine state that's capable of conquering Egypt (or conquering any territory for extended periods) is so different than OTL's Byzantium that it's really hard to say wha tit can do.

Dandalo was able to do so due to the Byzantine state having a level of corruption and terrible leadership Mobutu would be ashamed of, not due to any inherent martial ability of the crusaders. In any case the Byzantine state was on paper the strongest in the Med at 1180, its not inconcievable to have them finish off the conquest of Anatolia and begin shifting resources south towards the Levant.
 
I know this is a rather unrealistic possibility even for resurgent reasonable Byzantine TLs, but I want to take the occasion to say how various people seems attracted by the idea of a "Roman Mexico"... It's rather something which usually appears once in a while (expecially in the map section).

Really? I see Roman NA a lot more. It's always a ship that gets caught up in a storm on its way to Britannia, too.
 
Top