Effects of a Byzantine Survival.

One issue not being discussed is the powers in the south. The Burji Mamluks will be left the only Islamic power in the region immediately after the Timurids and have a more important resource than the Timurids have in all its armed forces. As in, the Burji Mamluks still rule over the house of Abbasid and the Caliphal line of Muhammad (SAW).

Burji Mamluks could create clients all throughout Anatolia and challenge Venice in the Mediterranean, at least in the short term. If the Burji could ever recover Baghdad, then they could feasibilly be recognized as a continuation of the Abbasid Caliphate and begin to make inroads across the Islamic world.

EDIT: Part of what saved the Burji in its own war against Timur was the use of their Abbasid assets to divert Timur into their so called ally Bayezid.
 
Last edited:
Burji Mamluks could create clients all throughout Anatolia
It would be an interesting rupture from usual Egyptian policies, tough : Mameluke hold on Syria in the early XVth was still quite limited, and their campaign in Cyprus was essentially tied to the island being a nest of pirates that kept raiding the Syrian coast.
Not that I couldn't see Mamelukes raids in Anatolia being, ITTL, the first step of a syzerainty over the south of the region (in fact, it could likely happen in the right circumstances). But giving the dynastical isntability of late Mameluke Egypt, I wonder how much it would survive the shaky successions between Al-Myyya's and Barsbay's reigns.

I think that the Qara and Ag Qoyunlu have eventually a fair chance preventing Mamelukes to really advance too much in Anatolia. Granted, they're not that much stable either, but they prooved to be efficient enough. That said, maybe the PoD could actually fragilize them, but I don't know enough of the area to tell how and how much.

Toughts?

and challenge Venice in the Mediterranean
If something, I wonder how much a strong Mameluke power in Near-East wouldn't be fine with Venice : the big foes of the Sultanate when it came to piracy and trade wars were more generally Catalans and Genoese. After all, a lot of Venice trade power came from Egypt and you did have a working relationship there, one that was based on trade interdependence.

It could change, admittedly, but not without Mamelukes radically changing policies and being a mediterranean naval power : they did signed agreement with Aragon from which originated a lot of eastern mediterraneans quasi-privateers that came in force after Barsbay's attempt at getting rid of Latin traders, pointing he could do little there.

Of course, once Portugueses manage to bypass the Venetian/Mameluke trade hegemony, the Sultanate is going to loose a lot of its edge, at least for a time as long it takes for the trade and economical crisis to settle.
 
If something, I wonder how much a strong Mameluke power in Near-East wouldn't be fine with Venice : the big foes of the Sultanate when it came to piracy and trade wars were more generally Catalans and Genoese. After all, a lot of Venice trade power came from Egypt and you did have a working relationship there, one that was based on trade interdependence.

It could change, admittedly, but not without Mamelukes radically changing policies and being a mediterranean naval power : they did signed agreement with Aragon from which originated a lot of eastern mediterraneans quasi-privateers that came in force after Barsbay's attempt at getting rid of Latin traders, pointing he could do little there.

Of course, once Portugueses manage to bypass the Venetian/Mameluke trade hegemony, the Sultanate is going to loose a lot of its edge, at least for a time as long it takes for the trade and economical crisis to settle.

I would think that a Venice which is not threatened by the Ottomans in the Aegean sea (as it happened starting with the war of 1460 and the loss of Negroponte) might have an incentive in strengthening their ties with Mameluke Egypt, the more so if the "long-peace" in Italy happens as IOTL.
It might not happen, and it might incentivate Venetian appetites in mainland Italy (which might be more successful if there is no trade disruption in the east and the need to fight against the Ottomans). However once Portuguese interlopers appear in India and pose a significant threat to the Mameluke/Venetian trade hegemony, it is almost sure that Venice would react: even in the much more difficult situation of OTL, Venice participated (in a minor way: they sent gunnery experts to set up cannon foundries in the hinterland of Goa in the first decade of 16th century) in the Ottoman-Mameluke alliance. ITTL Venice might be willing and strong enough to set up a naval presence in the Red sea, and certainly to have a diplomatic and trade presence in Persia (assuming that a Safavid-equivalent develops ITTL too).
IOTL Venice started to use round ships as gunnery platforms in their wars against the Ottomans, although this was somehow discontinued after the explosion which engulfed a Venetian round ship and an Ottoman one at the battle of Sapienza. Since they were certainly familiar with Portuguese naos and caravels used in the Atlantic, the sea conditions in the Indian ocean (completely different from the Mediterranean) would be likely to push them to explore similar alternatives.
 
You should read the posts more carefully, it would be more productive this way : after the imperial finances eventually reached bankruptcy in the XIVth, Byzantine armies generally reached up to 3,000/4,000 men at best.

But I doubt Byzzies could even reach that in the early XVth : as pointed repetitively, they lost almost all worthwhile territory and were stuck on a coastal band and relied extensively on Latin mercenaries at this point.


7,500 men were the numbers of the expedition of 1456. It's not as much a limit for a potential Venetian expedition, than an actual, factual, historical number.

Keeping in mind that numbers I gave above for the XIVth, meaning that Byzantine Empire could rise an army of at very best some 4,000 even when it controlled the southern part of Balkan peninsula (except southern Greece), I think you're particularily mislead in your opinion.


But at the same time,the Byzantine forces in Morea seemed to be much capable militarily.They were able to take over the entirety of Achaea and actually forced Athens into vassalage.They were also able to resist Ottoman invasion at one point.

But yeah,you've convinced me that if the Byzantines remained bankrupt and without an army much like the 14th century,they are screwed if the Venetians do try to take them on.

Nonetheless,it's entirely possible for the empire to take advantage of Venetian distraction on the Italian mainland.Another thing is that the empire will probably be much closely aligned with the militarily much weaker Genoa than Venice as they already did to avoid being a client of any power.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

One thing I feel that should be noted is the demographics in this scenario. A decimation of Anatolia via Timur combined with a political implosion for the Balkans would mean the regional population would still recover as plague and raids subsided and the Turkic migrations into the Balkans heavily limited.

Given the very limited population of Rhomania (and the rest of the Balkans) at the time, a population boom from the stabilization of borders would drastically impact any states projection power. Of course I don't really know who's benefit most from a baby boom. For the ERE, this is a very crude but effective way of lessening its fiscal dependency on outsiders, which has knock off effects on everything.
 
But at the same time,the Byzantine forces in Morea seemed to be much capable militarily.They were able to take over the entirety of Achaea and actually forced Athens into vassalage.They were also able to resist Ottoman invasion at one point.
Morea is a bit of a distinct case : it's rather representative of the various dynastical principalties that I mentioned in this thread (that existed at times in Thessalonica or Thrace), being largly autonomous from the imperial power (it's somehow reminiscent of a suzerain/vassal or apanage relationship, altough I'm not sure if you had an actual Latin influence there).
The decentralized success of Morea makes me think that, with the almost guaranteed establishment of similar principalties in reconquered parts of North-Western Anatolia, you could see an effective structural recover of these regions with a possible regional build-up. Nothing wank-worthy, but still...

It's worth noting, tough, that Morean success is partially due to the absence of genoese or venetian meddling : the principalty of Achaia was part of the Angevine sphere of influence (as the county palatine of the Ionian archipelago) and everything that weakened it wasn't seen with much hostility by these powers, that the least one could say.
It's why I think that a Byzantine Empire or byzantines principalties have a regional geopolitical role to play, allowing them to take back some part of the Romania's hinterland, on which Italians weren't that interested if at all.

But yeah,you've convinced me that if the Byzantines remained bankrupt and without an army much like the 14th century,they are screwed if the Venetians do try to take them on.
The big chance of the Byzantine Empire at this point is that Venetians couldn't care less about crushing Byzzies. They were fine treating it as a big client network managing the hinterland as long as their trade and coastal influence was safe. Their sheer naval hegemony in the region prevented Byzantines to go crazy there and after some clashes in the XIVth, the lesson was dutifully remembered by the ruling elite (much less so by the population, tough).
Venice wouldn't undergo a costly campaign to take on Romania's hinterland, an operation without clear benefits when it came to their interests : you'd really need some crazy despot, prince or usurper to force Venetians reacting with full strength in the XVth.

Nonetheless,it's entirely possible for the empire to take advantage of Venetian distraction on the Italian mainland.
It was what I tried to point in the last posts : if Italian Wars folds as IOTL, you could see Byzantine Empire managing to gain some hold back in the region. I don't expect a full-fledged war with the Serenissima, but rather making themselves necessary skilled auxiliaries (trough recruitment of Greek or Slavic mercenaries/retinues, that did were used IOTL but in relatively short supply after the Turkish takeover, while Venice beneficied from the influx of Christian refugees in its overseas dominions). I don't think it would lead to an immediate military build-up, but it could be part of its reappearance.

For what matter the XVth, tough, the empire isn't going to be that much relevant militarily, a secondary regional power mostly built on Latin,,Slavic and Turkic mercenaries.

Another thing is that the empire will probably be much closely aligned with the militarily much weaker Genoa than Venice as they already did to avoid being a client of any power.
It's not like they have a lot of choice on the matter : while Venice wasn't bound to puppetize the empire (the whole operation would have been costly, and would have met with both Romania's popilation AND Venetian elite opposition), it wouldn't have seen with that much benevolence a definitive shift.

Then, we have to remember that Byzantine, in the 1350's, did went at war with an Italian city-state in order to break its hegemony over Bosporus. And it was a war against Genoa, with Venetians in the role of benevolent allies. On this regard, I don't think you'd have a natural inclination from Constantinople to Genoa (I think such view mostly comes from Genoese participation into Constantinople's defense in 1453), but rather a diplomacy of balance

While Genoa would have been more touched by post-Ottoman turkic piracy in the region (mostly in Black Sea) it would still have been an important regional power, not as much of a reliable ally on the long term than Venice, and if St George bank is still ITTL the financial heartbeat of the Habsburg hegemony, Genoa could very possibly make a comeback in the XVIth (altough the early part of the century is still going to be somewhat problematic, possibly leading to some Byzantine meddling in Bosporus proper).
 
It was what I tried to point in the last posts : if Italian Wars folds as IOTL, you could see Byzantine Empire managing to gain some hold back in the region. I don't expect a full-fledged war with the Serenissima, but rather making themselves necessary skilled auxiliaries (trough recruitment of Greek or Slavic mercenaries/retinues, that did were used IOTL but in relatively short supply after the Turkish takeover, while Venice beneficied from the influx of Christian refugees in its overseas dominions). I don't think it would lead to an immediate military build-up, but it could be part of its reappearance.

For what matter the XVth, tough, the empire isn't going to be that much relevant militarily, a secondary regional power mostly built on Latin,,Slavic and Turkic mercenaries.
That's essentially what I meant by maritime republics having limited potentials on land.Just like France in the Seven Years' War,priorities in the colonies will be put in the back-burner when there are wars back home or when the homeland's constantly under the threat of war.
 
The Venetians fought multiple wars with the Ottomans at their peak.

Even given Byzantine survival and a lot of luck I just can't see them becoming more than a regional power at best, and I strongly doubt they will ever have the manpower to defeat the Venetian navy. Venice almost certainly keeps Negroponte, Crete, Cyprus etc and probably preserves Morean and Athenian independence. TBH I think even if the "Empire" (which, at this point, isbasically a glorified, depopulated, and flat broke city state) survive the Turks, the Bulgarians, Hungarians, Serbians or Russians will eventually conquer Constantinople and proclaim themselves emperor.

With a POD as far back as Tamerlane the Italian Wars as we know them are gone.
 
The Venetians fought multiple wars with the Ottomans at their peak.

Even given Byzantine survival and a lot of luck I just can't see them becoming more than a regional power at best, and I strongly doubt they will ever have the manpower to defeat the Venetian navy. Venice almost certainly keeps Negroponte, Crete, Cyprus etc and probably preserves Morean and Athenian independence. TBH I think even if the "Empire" (which, at this point, isbasically a glorified, depopulated, and flat broke city state) survive the Turks, the Bulgarians, Hungarians, Serbians or Russians will eventually conquer Constantinople and proclaim themselves emperor.

With a POD as far back as Tamerlane the Italian Wars as we know them are gone.
I doubt it.Aragon already has strong interests in Italy.France will most likely turn it's attention to Italy eventually.Similarly,the Habsburgs(even without Spain or the Netherlands) will probably interfere to get control over Italy.I think some sort of Italian Wars will develops,it's just a matter of when,who the participants are and how it breaks up.
 
Last edited:
Top