Could the Byzantine Empire have survived?

@Atamolos
Thing is, it's extremely debatable than we could consider Francia as a nation-state, or even a good chunk of medieval France : the parallel and identification of the state with a distinct people is begging to appear in the very Late Middle-Ages and is not really dominant before the XVIIth century.
While I think @stevej713 comparison is a bit flawed because, while we can trace a continuation between Late Ancient Francia and medieval WFrance, it's essentially an historiographical continuation (which doesn't mean it's false, but it's certainly limited). Merovingian Francia, as what matter institutions, society and general outlook is closer to the Late Roman Empire, rather than medieval Western France, for instance (although I agree we can trace a direct evolution from Xth France to XVIIIth France, not without strong changes, this being said).
And that's the strength of Byzantine institutions : as for medieval France, they're a direct evolution of itself and a continuity not just imagined by real of its own history. The problem of Byzantine state wasn't it was decadent, obsolete, doomed...but that its institutions and its population (itself an unformal institution within the Empire) became estrangered by the XIIIth century in a time of successive geopolitical and financial crisis for the empire.

I'd agree that Francia was not a nation-state, and not-so-coincidentally, it did not outlive the Byzantines. While I think "pure nationalism" or "modern nationalism" is indeed anachronistic in analyzing this period, but I think some form of national consciousness can be said to exist since around the 12th century in France. I'd agree that institutions are the root of the problem, but I'd also argue that these institutional issues are characteristic of empires and absent in nation states. It would take one hell of a POD imo to stave off the long, slow decline of the Byzantines
 
It survived a helluva long time, against any odds. Its lifespan was wanked by OTL beyond what one would consider plausibility in an AH scenario. Why would anyone want to continue their tragicomedy even longer?

Perhaps the best thing that could possibly happen for Byzantium would be, ironically, if Nicaea did NOT take Constantinople in 1261. Either they do so much earlier (in which case the Palaiologoi policies never happen), or someone else (Epirus, Thesalonica or Bulgaria) takes the city.

A scenario where the empire of Nicaea remains headquartered in Anatolia, offers an interesting chance that it might sustain itself indefinitely. It might even become the nucleus of modern "Greece", located in western Asia Minor, with Smyrna its capital.
 
Last edited:
I'd agree that Francia was not a nation-state, and not-so-coincidentally, it did not outlive the Byzantines.
It have little to do with its transformation into Carolingia, tough : the succeeding institutions were based on aristocratic hegemony which, if it didn't gave Carolingian a chance to compete in matter of longevity with Merovingians (far from it, actually) lasted until the modern era as a whole.
Frankish kingship relatively different from Byzantine imperium, as it was the rule of one people in particular both as maintainer of social order and as dynamic elite, which wasn't the case in Constantinople.

but I think some form of national consciousness can be said to exist since around the 12th century in France.
It's hard to be entirely definitive one way or another : regionalism was certainly a factor in Early Middle Ages (the "eastern kingdom" of Paulus, Aquitain particularism, opposition against Ottonians in France on a Western Frankish identity basis, etc.) but I'd be extremely wary calling it nationalism because it lacked systematisation (potentes could ignore it as soon it befitted them) and pervasiveness of the concept into society at large.
Even in the XIIth century, there was no real concept of a French identity or nation : for instance, Louis IX was incensed as "king of Gaul" by some chronicler because he obviously ruled much more than France (which was, more or less, modern Ile-de-France) and regional identities remained both quite strong and dominated by the concept of an universal christian identity divided dynastically. Very roughly speaking.
One could say that the creation of the Estates Generals by Philippe IV is a first institutional acknowledgement of a social-cultural body outside the royal authority on all the kingdom (and even there it remained divided between Estates in Oil and Oc languages). It was progressive (at first not all provinces were represented, while some foreign princes were) but they were one important institutions (besides systematical Capetian bureaucracy) into making a national identity shared on all the kingdom since the XIVth century.

The question of the Byzantine Empire is different there, as the imperial institution, merged with orthodox cesaropapism, was the universal identity at disposal rather than Christianity and gathered on the imperial head a lot of features that were partially divided in western Europe (it's more complicated, because both the HREmperor and the French king were sacred, but...). While you certainly had regional and cultural identities existing and making themselves heard (including the revendication of a Greek identity, in the sense of "Greek culturally, Roman politically) as you can see in the Alexiad).
In fact, it had been argued that Middle Byzantine Empire was on the road of nation-state building on a Roman political identity (Anthony Kaldellis) even if it's not entierely convincing : to paraphrase De Gruyter, provincial masses weren't involved in this general mix-up. But a Roman identity as a dominating one? That's really another matter altogether and, again borrowing from the same article (I put a link at the end of the post), managed too secure imperial identity and longevity, something that can be seen on the make-up and behavior of armies.
Basically the emperor was meant to rule over various ethnies and peoples, on an universalist approach.
It really broke apart in the Late Byzantine Empire, when popular identity and political role began to divorce an imperial power that couldn't anymore claim having an universal role and ruling effectively mostly on Greeks.

https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/byzs.2014.107.issue-1/bz-2014-0009/bz-2014-0009.pdf
 
A scenario where the empire of Nicaea remains headquartered in Anatolia, offers an interesting chance that it might sustain itself indefinitely. It might even become the nucleus of modern "Greece", located in western Asia Minor, with Smyrna its capital.
If Nicaea was out of the question as a capital, we would likely see Magnesia (second city) or Nymphaeum (summer residence) as capitals instead, not Smyrna.
 
I'd agree that "nationalism" or "proto-nationalism" or whatever we're ascribing to early modern Western European states is anachronistic in applying to the Byzantine Empire at its height, but had it survived too much longer, it would have simply succumbed to the same forces that gutted the Ottoman Empire, although probably much faster if the region of Anatolia were in any way Islamized. I'm willing to change my mind given a really convincing POD, but absent that, I just don't see it. Honestly OTL was already something of a Roman/Byzantine wank, there's only so much more you can squeeze out of an ancient state like that. Imo it would take some pretty serious modernization that I'm not sure OTL's Byzantines were capable of
What is it that magically makes the Byzantine empire not able to "modernize"? Why would the empire NOT assimilate the various people within its borders, like the Ottomans did with Anatolia?
 

Deleted member 67076

It depends from the PoD, tough : I think a PoD in the last decades of Byzantium would ask for a slower recover (in no small parts because the empire was bankrupt and at the mercy of Italian city-states). Nothing managable with luck and insight in taking opportunities (such as Italian Wars) but still perillous.
I think basically before 1350 and there's enough of a hinterland where land reform would fuel enough economic productivity to pay for a decent sized navy at least that will begin to turn the tide due to geographical advantages of being closer to the trade networks. Land reform through distribution of church lands especially would allow for many of the urban poor or sharecroppers to be shifted away to farmers and maximize yields.

Certainly a space such as that of, say, 1330 Rhomania with around 1-2 million people and several large cities can't be turned into a giant set of shipping yards, artisanal factories, and a farmboy to navy pipeline that could probably outcompete the Italians in sheer scope and cheaper labor costs (especially since the Romans don't have to wait a month to reinforce troops and ships) after a few decades of rapid growth (given the devastations of Bulgarian independence and the occasional Mongol/Italian raid, not hard to do).
 

Deleted member 67076

That is certainly interesting. I have not heard about the first part before. Weren't the Italian states mostly republics though? These were relatively sophisticated political systems for their day with some degree of elective office and democratic representation. That tends to produce better leadership than a hereditary monarchy based on divinely ordained kings with absolute autocratic power.
Im very mixed on calling them sophisticated political systems. Genoa was a libertarian paradise with no morals and Venice was a state capitalist oligarchy dominated by enough old men and small families it'd make the late Soviets blush. Both were oligarchies dominated by small cliques much like the rest of their neighbors.

Also, while the policies listed are undoubtedly a good idea, why would an emperor adopt them? Emperors tended to come from the very section of society that was most aristocratic, and least likely to adopt progressive reforms. Indeed if I recall correctly even the very word "innovation" became a pejorative in Byzantine elite society.
Because it provides another power base to support the imperial office- the neglected Mezazoi (middle classes representing the Urban artisans, government bureaucratic families, medium sized smallholders, and the navy, which for some reason that I can't remember tended to be staffed with novus homo all throughout the Byzantine Period). The late empire unfortunately resembled feudal Europe in that the Monarch had to fight large landowners for control and influence. Breaking the Dynatoi also means gaining support in smaller farmers and sharecroppers who are far more eager to fight for their land rather than some noble who can bargain away imperial territory since he has estates a few dozen kilometers away.

That's the crux of the problem I think: the empire's government and institutions were increasingly decayed and obsolete. So perhaps I'm agreeing with you about the need for a change of leadership. I guess the question is, how likely was that to happen? Not very likely, it seems. Here I wonder if it was actually the earlier Komnenian dynasty that instituted the beginnings of decline, by turning the empire into a glorified family business.
Eh that's reading too much into Gibbon. The Late Empire always had a very large and vigorous element wanting reform and realizing the changes around them, its why the civil wars became increasingly bloody and catastrophic, because people realized the empire was on the line and that it was do or die time. Even then, we had leaders with incredible amounts of self awareness that realized the need for change up until Constantine XI; the issue is of course being the limited resources by then.

Like there's a lot of change in the army, the economy, and the readings of this time period that really signal in at least one major part of society screaming for reform and change to restore past glory, rather than some bull headedness about everything being fine as the house is on fire.

I'd agree that "nationalism" or "proto-nationalism" or whatever we're ascribing to early modern Western European states is anachronistic in applying to the Byzantine Empire at its height, but had it survived too much longer, it would have simply succumbed to the same forces that gutted the Ottoman Empire, although probably much faster if the region of Anatolia were in any way Islamized. I'm willing to change my mind given a really convincing POD, but absent that, I just don't see it. Honestly OTL was already something of a Roman/Byzantine wank, there's only so much more you can squeeze out of an ancient state like that. Imo it would take some pretty serious modernization that I'm not sure OTL's Byzantines were capable of
So there actually are a few things the Roman Empire has in advantage in comparison to the Ottomans and nationalism, and thats the circumstances of local peoples under its rule. A ton of modern national identity was formed in reaction to defining themselves against the Turks, this is probably lessened or lost in comparison with the Byzantines given the common religion in the Balkans and Anatolia.

Furthermore, the Ottomans sort of just let Anatolia and Syria be run by nomadic peoples, which the Byzantines pretty much universally hated and would have forced them to settle down in cities (increasing assimilatory pressures). And also the Ottomans let the literacy rates of the places decline, they didn't keep the Byzantine practice of extensive common education- remember the Byzantines had a huge literacy rate of around 30% in 1000AD, almost unheard of, while the Ottomans barely had 5% literacy in 1800.

Basically, education, religion, and urbanization are powerful tools in creating a national identity which undermines a lot of standard tropes trying to link the Ottomans as just an Islamic version of the Byzantine empires when the two were run and operated pretty differently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eh that's reading too much into Gibbon. The Late Empire always had a very large and vigorous element wanting reform and realizing the changes around them, its why the civil wars became increasingly bloody and catastrophic, because people realized the empire was on the line and that it was do or die time. Even then, we had leaders with incredible amounts of self awareness that realized the need for change up until Constantine XI; the issue is of course being the limited resources by then.

Like there's a lot of change in the army, the economy, and the readings of this time period that really signal in at least one major part of society screaming for reform and change to restore past glory, rather than some bull headedness about everything being fine as the house is on fire.

Why did the empire fall?
 

Deleted member 67076

Why did the empire fall?
Bad luck, internal instability, and a bad strategic frontier. The institutions are the reason why it didn't fall earlier even though the horrible strategic situation of any state that straddles the Balkans and Anatolia sort of demand a collapse within a century or two.
 
Bad luck, internal instability, and a bad strategic frontier. The institutions are the reason why it didn't fall earlier even though the horrible strategic situation of any state that straddles the Balkans and Anatolia sort of demand a collapse within a century or two.

1389:

753px-3_-Murad_I_map.PNG


Territorial_changes_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_1878.jpg


That's nearly 500 years straddling the Balkans and Anatolia...

My apologies for the rather short posts. I'm having a really bad cold atm and not feeling great.

But my cheeky suggestion would be it's not luck nor the geography, I think the internal instability you mentioned (plus structural weaknesses in how the society was organised) is the best explanation.
 
The Romans straddled the Balkans and Anatolia for ~1400 years, they did just fine that whole time

The trick is that both the Romans and Ottomans had enemies on every side constantly seeking to bring them down. As soon as their peripheral regions were conquered the heartland became extremely vulnerable

I guess I’d argue that any TL with a post-1204 PoD is going to have a much harder time keeping the Empire alive...
 

Deleted member 67076

That's nearly 500 years straddling the Balkans and Anatolia...
Sure, and when Austria, Russia, France, and Iran worked in tandem during the 1700s and 1800s the Ottomans got cracked like a walnut repeatedly, weakening the state and chipping away at its power. The Balkans and Anatolia, as strategically sound as they may be still unfortunately represent at least 3-5 fronts that have to be looked at at all times.

This was the same for the Byzantines, the Komnenoi had difficulty making progress when they had to deal with both the Turks and Normans together, much less when the Hungarians decided to be a nuisance.
 
I think if Manuel I holds on for another couple years until his son is old enough to rule on his own you have a very different timeline starting around 1180 AD. A continuous transition of power from Manuel to an adult Alexios II would most likely have prevented the most catastrophic event in late Byzantine history, the sacking of Constantinople during the fourth crusade. A Byzantine empire that isn't weakened by the fourth crusade is able to weather the storm of the Hungarians, Normans, Turks until the Mongols come ( in Europe 1240 and then again in Anatolia 1400 ) and take advantage of the ensuring power vacuum to take out the sultanate of rum and the fatimid dynasty.

Here's how it might look: During Alexios II reign Byzantium would be able to continue offering help to the Crusader states helping them to limp along and continuing Byzantine influence within those areas ( maybe even reassert formal Imperial authority ). He would probably continue the pro western policies of his father, continuing to aide the Crusader states and would probably be viewed as a protector and friend of Christians. With a legitimate emperor who was viewed as a protector of the Christian faith, its unlikely the fourth crusade gets diverted ( especially since the casus belli of the diversion of the fourth crusade was to put Isacc II back on the throne, who in this timeline would have remained a loyal general ). But in general the empire would still be hard pressed on all sides and economically hard pressed from all of Manuel's ( and Alexios' II ) wars at this point; but still held together under a legitimate emperor, Alexios II. The arrival of Genghis Khan in 1240 would grant the Byzantine Empire a reprieve on its western front; allowing them to take back some of the territories they would have lost to Hungarians / Normans and recover economically. The continued presence of crusader states supported by a unified Byzantine Empire however helps slow the tide of the Sultanate of Rum during this time. Most importantly the prestige of the Eastern Roman Emperor ( assuming Alexios II doesn't die young and has a son ) would still be intact and the city of Constantinople would economically be independent of Venice and the other Italian states thus ensuring revenue for the mercenaries that the Byzantine army relied so heavily on. Between 1280 and 1380 would probably be rough for the Empire internally; the constant warfare and the end of the Komnenoi dynasty ( cause lets face it anything over 200 years for a Byzantine dynasty is way too long ), and a likely explosion of religiously and culturally fueled anti-western feeling would probably lead to some civil wars and unrest. So that by around 1400 the Byzantine Empire would territorially be diminished on its eastern front and economically exhausted. It would still have a decent amount of its European possession due to the Kingdom of Sicily ( Normans ) being absorbed into the HRE around 1200 ( thus no more invading Normans ) and the second Bulgarian Empire never forming ( no Andronikos or Isaac II or political instability during that time that would lead to a revolt ) so that a re-emergent Hungary would be the only direct European threat. In the east the Crusader states would be either destroyed or essentially vassals of the Sultanate/Fatimids, allowing the Sultanate to focus all its energy on capturing Constantinople, a war which the empire wouldn't fair well in. Their salvation however would come in 1400 when Timur invades Anatolia and practically wipes out the Sultanate of Rum. The main difference in this timeline opposed to the real one is that there is an economically independent core of Byzantine holdings such that the Byzantine empire is then able to take out the severely weakened Sultanate and take advantage of the turmoil to reassert its control of its former territories up to Antioch. The Ottoman Empire is never born, and the Byzantine Empire restores Imperial control in most of modern day Turkey and Antioch. They could even continue south to Egypt and topple the Fatimid dynasty which itself was experiencing its own difficulties around 1400-1415 ( a boy king, severe famines, plague and revolts ).
So by 1415 you could have a Byzantine Empire controlling most of the original lands it had during ancient Roman times ( albeit some more tenuously than others ). While it probably won't hold all of these territories forever, it would have endured long enough to ensure it survives as a nation into modern times.
 
I think if Manuel I holds on for another couple years until his son is old enough to rule on his own you have a very different timeline starting around 1180 AD. A continuous transition of power from Manuel to an adult Alexios II would most likely have prevented the most catastrophic event in late Byzantine history, the sacking of Constantinople during the fourth crusade. A Byzantine empire that isn't weakened by the fourth crusade is able to weather the storm of the Hungarians, Normans, Turks until the Mongols come ( in Europe 1240 and then again in Anatolia 1400 ) and take advantage of the ensuring power vacuum to take out the sultanate of rum and the fatimid dynasty.

Here's how it might look: During Alexios II reign Byzantium would be able to continue offering help to the Crusader states helping them to limp along and continuing Byzantine influence within those areas ( maybe even reassert formal Imperial authority ). He would probably continue the pro western policies of his father, continuing to aide the Crusader states and would probably be viewed as a protector and friend of Christians. With a legitimate emperor who was viewed as a protector of the Christian faith, its unlikely the fourth crusade gets diverted ( especially since the casus belli of the diversion of the fourth crusade was to put Isacc II back on the throne, who in this timeline would have remained a loyal general ). But in general the empire would still be hard pressed on all sides and economically hard pressed from all of Manuel's ( and Alexios' II ) wars at this point; but still held together under a legitimate emperor, Alexios II. The arrival of Genghis Khan in 1240 would grant the Byzantine Empire a reprieve on its western front; allowing them to take back some of the territories they would have lost to Hungarians / Normans and recover economically. The continued presence of crusader states supported by a unified Byzantine Empire however helps slow the tide of the Sultanate of Rum during this time. Most importantly the prestige of the Eastern Roman Emperor ( assuming Alexios II doesn't die young and has a son ) would still be intact and the city of Constantinople would economically be independent of Venice and the other Italian states thus ensuring revenue for the mercenaries that the Byzantine army relied so heavily on. Between 1280 and 1380 would probably be rough for the Empire internally; the constant warfare and the end of the Komnenoi dynasty ( cause lets face it anything over 200 years for a Byzantine dynasty is way too long ), and a likely explosion of religiously and culturally fueled anti-western feeling would probably lead to some civil wars and unrest. So that by around 1400 the Byzantine Empire would territorially be diminished on its eastern front and economically exhausted. It would still have a decent amount of its European possession due to the Kingdom of Sicily ( Normans ) being absorbed into the HRE around 1200 ( thus no more invading Normans ) and the second Bulgarian Empire never forming ( no Andronikos or Isaac II or political instability during that time that would lead to a revolt ) so that a re-emergent Hungary would be the only direct European threat. In the east the Crusader states would be either destroyed or essentially vassals of the Sultanate/Fatimids, allowing the Sultanate to focus all its energy on capturing Constantinople, a war which the empire wouldn't fair well in. Their salvation however would come in 1400 when Timur invades Anatolia and practically wipes out the Sultanate of Rum. The main difference in this timeline opposed to the real one is that there is an economically independent core of Byzantine holdings such that the Byzantine empire is then able to take out the severely weakened Sultanate and take advantage of the turmoil to reassert its control of its former territories up to Antioch. The Ottoman Empire is never born, and the Byzantine Empire restores Imperial control in most of modern day Turkey and Antioch. They could even continue south to Egypt and topple the Fatimid dynasty which itself was experiencing its own difficulties around 1400-1415 ( a boy king, severe famines, plague and revolts ).
So by 1415 you could have a Byzantine Empire controlling most of the original lands it had during ancient Roman times ( albeit some more tenuously than others ). While it probably won't hold all of these territories forever, it would have endured long enough to ensure it survives as a nation into modern times.
Considering who the secret of the greek fire (the best defense of Costantinople against any siege) was likely lost in the civil wars in which was involved the fourth crusade and likely with Manuel still alive Saladin would never be able to conquer Jerusalem aka the specific set of circumstances who caused the battle of Hattin and the fall of Jerusalem will not happen here as Guy likely will never be King of Jerusalem (considering who her half-sister was a relative of Manuel I do not think Sybilla here will use her OTL trick to divorce from Guy t to be crowned and then remarry him)
 
I think if Manuel I holds on for another couple years until his son is old enough to rule on his own you have a very different timeline starting around 1180 AD. A continuous transition of power from Manuel to an adult Alexios II would most likely have prevented the most catastrophic event in late Byzantine history, the sacking of Constantinople during the fourth crusade. A Byzantine empire that isn't weakened by the fourth crusade is able to weather the storm of the Hungarians, Normans, Turks until the Mongols come ( in Europe 1240 and then again in Anatolia 1400 ) and take advantage of the ensuring power vacuum to take out the sultanate of rum and the fatimid dynasty.

Here's how it might look: During Alexios II reign Byzantium would be able to continue offering help to the Crusader states helping them to limp along and continuing Byzantine influence within those areas ( maybe even reassert formal Imperial authority ). He would probably continue the pro western policies of his father, continuing to aide the Crusader states and would probably be viewed as a protector and friend of Christians. With a legitimate emperor who was viewed as a protector of the Christian faith, its unlikely the fourth crusade gets diverted ( especially since the casus belli of the diversion of the fourth crusade was to put Isacc II back on the throne, who in this timeline would have remained a loyal general ). But in general the empire would still be hard pressed on all sides and economically hard pressed from all of Manuel's ( and Alexios' II ) wars at this point; but still held together under a legitimate emperor, Alexios II. The arrival of Genghis Khan in 1240 would grant the Byzantine Empire a reprieve on its western front; allowing them to take back some of the territories they would have lost to Hungarians / Normans and recover economically. The continued presence of crusader states supported by a unified Byzantine Empire however helps slow the tide of the Sultanate of Rum during this time. Most importantly the prestige of the Eastern Roman Emperor ( assuming Alexios II doesn't die young and has a son ) would still be intact and the city of Constantinople would economically be independent of Venice and the other Italian states thus ensuring revenue for the mercenaries that the Byzantine army relied so heavily on. Between 1280 and 1380 would probably be rough for the Empire internally; the constant warfare and the end of the Komnenoi dynasty ( cause lets face it anything over 200 years for a Byzantine dynasty is way too long ), and a likely explosion of religiously and culturally fueled anti-western feeling would probably lead to some civil wars and unrest. So that by around 1400 the Byzantine Empire would territorially be diminished on its eastern front and economically exhausted. It would still have a decent amount of its European possession due to the Kingdom of Sicily ( Normans ) being absorbed into the HRE around 1200 ( thus no more invading Normans ) and the second Bulgarian Empire never forming ( no Andronikos or Isaac II or political instability during that time that would lead to a revolt ) so that a re-emergent Hungary would be the only direct European threat. In the east the Crusader states would be either destroyed or essentially vassals of the Sultanate/Fatimids, allowing the Sultanate to focus all its energy on capturing Constantinople, a war which the empire wouldn't fair well in. Their salvation however would come in 1400 when Timur invades Anatolia and practically wipes out the Sultanate of Rum. The main difference in this timeline opposed to the real one is that there is an economically independent core of Byzantine holdings such that the Byzantine empire is then able to take out the severely weakened Sultanate and take advantage of the turmoil to reassert its control of its former territories up to Antioch. The Ottoman Empire is never born, and the Byzantine Empire restores Imperial control in most of modern day Turkey and Antioch. They could even continue south to Egypt and topple the Fatimid dynasty which itself was experiencing its own difficulties around 1400-1415 ( a boy king, severe famines, plague and revolts ).
So by 1415 you could have a Byzantine Empire controlling most of the original lands it had during ancient Roman times ( albeit some more tenuously than others ). While it probably won't hold all of these territories forever, it would have endured long enough to ensure it survives as a nation into modern times.
Wow, thank you very much for this. I thought this thread was probably dead. So thanks again!
 
I think if Manuel I holds on for another couple years until his son is old enough to rule on his own you have a very different timeline starting around 1180 AD. A continuous transition of power from Manuel to an adult Alexios II would most likely have prevented the most catastrophic event in late Byzantine history, the sacking of Constantinople during the fourth crusade. A Byzantine empire that isn't weakened by the fourth crusade is able to weather the storm of the Hungarians, Normans, Turks until the Mongols come ( in Europe 1240 and then again in Anatolia 1400 ) and take advantage of the ensuring power vacuum to take out the sultanate of rum and the fatimid dynasty.

Here's how it might look: During Alexios II reign Byzantium would be able to continue offering help to the Crusader states helping them to limp along and continuing Byzantine influence within those areas ( maybe even reassert formal Imperial authority ). He would probably continue the pro western policies of his father, continuing to aide the Crusader states and would probably be viewed as a protector and friend of Christians. With a legitimate emperor who was viewed as a protector of the Christian faith, its unlikely the fourth crusade gets diverted ( especially since the casus belli of the diversion of the fourth crusade was to put Isacc II back on the throne, who in this timeline would have remained a loyal general ). But in general the empire would still be hard pressed on all sides and economically hard pressed from all of Manuel's ( and Alexios' II ) wars at this point; but still held together under a legitimate emperor, Alexios II. The arrival of Genghis Khan in 1240 would grant the Byzantine Empire a reprieve on its western front; allowing them to take back some of the territories they would have lost to Hungarians / Normans and recover economically. The continued presence of crusader states supported by a unified Byzantine Empire however helps slow the tide of the Sultanate of Rum during this time. Most importantly the prestige of the Eastern Roman Emperor ( assuming Alexios II doesn't die young and has a son ) would still be intact and the city of Constantinople would economically be independent of Venice and the other Italian states thus ensuring revenue for the mercenaries that the Byzantine army relied so heavily on. Between 1280 and 1380 would probably be rough for the Empire internally; the constant warfare and the end of the Komnenoi dynasty ( cause lets face it anything over 200 years for a Byzantine dynasty is way too long ), and a likely explosion of religiously and culturally fueled anti-western feeling would probably lead to some civil wars and unrest. So that by around 1400 the Byzantine Empire would territorially be diminished on its eastern front and economically exhausted. It would still have a decent amount of its European possession due to the Kingdom of Sicily ( Normans ) being absorbed into the HRE around 1200 ( thus no more invading Normans ) and the second Bulgarian Empire never forming ( no Andronikos or Isaac II or political instability during that time that would lead to a revolt ) so that a re-emergent Hungary would be the only direct European threat. In the east the Crusader states would be either destroyed or essentially vassals of the Sultanate/Fatimids, allowing the Sultanate to focus all its energy on capturing Constantinople, a war which the empire wouldn't fair well in. Their salvation however would come in 1400 when Timur invades Anatolia and practically wipes out the Sultanate of Rum. The main difference in this timeline opposed to the real one is that there is an economically independent core of Byzantine holdings such that the Byzantine empire is then able to take out the severely weakened Sultanate and take advantage of the turmoil to reassert its control of its former territories up to Antioch. The Ottoman Empire is never born, and the Byzantine Empire restores Imperial control in most of modern day Turkey and Antioch. They could even continue south to Egypt and topple the Fatimid dynasty which itself was experiencing its own difficulties around 1400-1415 ( a boy king, severe famines, plague and revolts ).
So by 1415 you could have a Byzantine Empire controlling most of the original lands it had during ancient Roman times ( albeit some more tenuously than others ). While it probably won't hold all of these territories forever, it would have endured long enough to ensure it survives as a nation into modern times.

First, thank you for breathing new life back into this topic. It's great to see new ideas being suggested :)

Alexios II is a somewhat problematic candidate for an emperor. The Byzantine historian Choniates wrote that Alexios was a vicious and insouciant youth. When papers would be presented to him, proposing that Mount Olympus be moved from one place to another, or that the heavens and the sky should swap place, he would sign them.

We cannot be sure that he would have been a good emperor, and the odds are against it (given that Alexios I, John II and Manuel I had already provided three good emperors consecutively, ruling for 99 years between them).

You're right that avoiding Andronikos I's usurpation of the throne in 1182 would probably mean the Fourth Crusade doesn't happen. That does have potentially major consequences for the region. But I think the Byzantines conquering the whole of Anatolia, Syria, Palestine and Egypt is unrealistic, and would require the intervention of Cheroptera Caelis Alienae.

Anti-western sentiment was rising and the behaviour of Venetians, Normans, Crusaders and others was the cause. By the late 12th century, it was clear to most people that these people were Enemies, not friends, and it was time for a fundamental shift in policy. There is no coincidence that the Angeloi sought to ally with Saladin against the Crusaders. They failed disastrously to gain any benefit from this policy, which brought them only shame and infamy. But that was largely a result of their own weakness and incompetence.

The point is, allying with Saladin against the Crusaders was actually a sensible and rational policy, and one rather more in line with the empire's interests, than the pro-western policy of the previous emperors. The Crusaders were treacherous, unreliable and frequently attacked the empire, as with Reynald de Chatillon's brutal ransacking of Cyprus in 1155. They betrayed the emperor John II Komnenos during his expedition to Syria in the 1130s, sitting around playing dice instead of helping at the siege of Shaizar, and refusing to hand over Antioch, using every underhanded trick in their ability to prevent the emperor from exercising his rightful authority over the city.

Crusaders passing through the Anatolian lands committed acts of theft, rape and destruction on the local Christians, generally making themselves thoroughly unpopular. It was time for a reaction. Powers such as Saladin's Ayyubid empire were civilised by the standards of the age, and sophisticated Arabic, Kurdish and Persian peoples of the east had far more in common with the Byzantines than the barbaric westerners.

Theorising about what happens after 1400 is unrealistic imo as that's 220 years after our point of divergence - much too far to say anything particularly meaningful with any certainty. I think what is plausible is that, if the Byzantine Empire can hold together internally and somehow continue with at least reasonably competent leadership, it can largely maintain its existing territories in Europe.

The real attraction of an alliance with Saladin is that it may offer the prospect of gaining control over Antioch, which had been a central aim of Komnenian foreign policy for over a century. There may even be a chance to seize a port or two along the Levantine coast, if the Byzantines act quickly. We know that Manuel I Komnenos had built up a large and powerful fleet, as he sent it against Egypt in the 1160s and again in the 1170s with over 200 ships, and also defeated the Venetians in a naval battle.

Looking at Anatolia, the question becomes harder to answer. There's no obvious benefit to a Saladin alliance there, other than perhaps leaving the Byzantine flanks relatively secure from that direction. It may be that by the 1170s, a strand of opinion had built up that it was time to end the dubious "vassalship" of the Seljuks at Konya and re-assert direct imperial rule here too. Manuel's policy of appeasement/overlordship most signally failed here, which is what led to a change of policy in 1176 and the invasion towards Konya. However, as we all know, his over-confidence/lack of caution led to defeat at Myriokephalon. It's an open question whether the empire could have launched another attempt in the following years.

The fate of the empire, as always, depended ultimately on three things:

1. Internal stability
2. Foreign policy (diplomacy)
3. War

Best case scenario, the Byzantines might be able to get back Anatolia, although it will likely take decades of campaigning and a good emperor/series of them.

The internal stability nut is probably the hardest to crack though. The Komnenoi had turned the empire into a family business, and the imperial clan had grown too large and unwieldy to rule effectively. Corruption and decadence had set in. Perhaps another frugal, soldier-emperor like John II could have changed course, kept his family at arm's length, and put in the necessary years of campaigning. But it's a big "If".
 
Last edited:
Anti-western sentiment was rising and the behaviour of Venetians, Normans, Crusaders and others was the cause. By the late 12th century, it was clear to most people that these people were Enemies, not friends, and it was time for a fundamental shift in policy. There is no coincidence that the Angeloi sought to ally with Saladin against the Crusaders. They failed disastrously to gain any benefit from this policy, which brought them only shame and infamy. But that was largely a result of their own weakness and incompetence.
Maybe allying with Saladin by itself was incompetence.

The point is, allying with Saladin against the Crusaders was actually a sensible and rational policy, and one rather more in line with the empire's interests, than the pro-western policy of the previous emperors. The Crusaders were treacherous, unreliable and frequently attacked the empire, as with Reynald de Chatillon's brutal ransacking of Cyprus in 1155.
Single cases don't represent the whole of the Latin-Byzantine mutual relations, Latin princes did not appreciate what he did anyhow.

They betrayed the emperor John II Komnenos during his expedition to Syria in the 1130s, sitting around playing dice instead of helping at the siege of Shaizar, and refusing to hand over Antioch, using every underhanded trick in their ability to prevent the emperor from exercising his rightful authority over the city.
It's a betrayal only if you ignore the actual context and base your view one the Byzantine one sided perspective, Antioch didn't go under the Byzantine because the Latins weren't ultimately joined by the Byzantines for the siege as was promised, regardless of their reasons.

Crusaders passing through the Anatolian lands committed acts of theft, rape and destruction on the local Christians, generally making themselves thoroughly unpopular. It was time for a reaction. Powers such as Saladin's Ayyubid empire were civilised by the standards of the age, and sophisticated Arabic, Kurdish and Persian peoples of the east had far more in common with the Byzantines than the barbaric westerners.
Did they do more raiding than any other army and if yes are you basing this view on what? More than Turkic and Arab raiders? But sure, the Latins are uncivilized barbarians and the Middle Easterners are the only ones able to understand civilization. Frankly this view is so ridiculous it doesn't even need to be refuted, it's a parody of itself.
 
Maybe allying with Saladin by itself was incompetence....

...sure, the Latins are uncivilized barbarians and the Middle Easterners are the only ones able to understand civilization. Frankly this view is so ridiculous it doesn't even need to be refuted, it's a parody of itself.

I must admit, I secretly quite enjoy your posts, Gloss... x'D

Perhaps it's my admiration for anyone willing to provide a take-down of a person, argument or trend (even if the target is my own post). How Machiavellian! lol
 
Top