Goals for a Byzantine Gunpowder Empire

[Faeelin]

Admittedly, this is inspired by EU4, but...

I think there's a tendency at times to assume that a Byzantine state would have a lot of the same goals as an Ottoman one. To an extent that will be true; both will want to dominate the Aegean, Balkan, and Anatolia. But beyond that?

I can't see the Byzantines expanding into Iraq or Egypt after the 12th century; the state never showed much interest in conquering large Muslim populations.

On the other hand, the Byzantines would probably exhibit more interest in conquering Italy than the Ottomans did. Perhaps they would also be more inclined to conquer the Crimea outright, and invade Ukraine?

Thoughts?

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Iraq no, but Egypt yes. The latter provides access to the Indian Ocean, is filthy rich, taking it would be a major boost of prestige and allows for easy contact with Ethiopia. Its too important to be left alone.

The Byzantine Empire's goals will likely include monopolizing the Silk Road terminuses, so Crimea, Armenia and Azerbaijan might be on the table.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Similarly to what Soverihn said. I could definitely see them trying to conquer the Levant, if not Mesopotamia. At least, not until they have a strong grip over the Levant.

Anyway, the Sinai and adjacent areas would be very handy, and forcing Egypt to accept protectorate status would be quite likely in the medium term.

And maybe, bringing Venice down a few pegs.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Likely Gunpowder Byzantine Targets

Egypt. - Even with the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia the Byzantine Emperors were interested.

Syria/Levant - Land connections, and still very wealthy, Damascus would be a very wealthy city of the Byzantines, and the Holy Land - regardless of the muslim populations, the prestige alone is worthwhile, especially if they'll tolerate the muslims of egypt.

Cyrenacia - perfect border region for defending Egypt from the west.

Shockingly, typical targets for a resurgent Byzantines.

Further targets

S.Italy/Sicily - Reasonable strategic target, and outside of the HRE, and allows them to apply pressure on the Pope to end the Schism.

N.Africa - difficult without Sicily, but advantageous

Italy - IF they Byzantines have the strength, wrestling the riches of Italy from the HRE should be possible, and likely due to heritage, prestige, and improves defensibility of S.Italy.

S.Spain - Probably the furthest you'd see without transforming into a genuine Colonial (or in this case Exarchal?) Empire. Not at all easy, and considering Christian Spain could complete the reconquista sooner, as difficult as invading Italy.

Carpathian Basin & Dneister Borderlands- Ignoring what power controls the area, if they don't go colonial, and have no better opportunity, I can see the Byzantines trying to expand outside of the Balkans in Europe, and besides Italy, these are the last options.

Eastern Colonial Targets

If they have Egypt - they can go Colonial, but only really eastward - if they deem it worthwhile, colonies could spread across the Indian Ocean. I'd hesitate to say there would be a Byzantine Raj, but I can see at least Ceylon, Singapore, Hong Kong style colonies. Especially with an Italian Merchant class being part of the Empire.

Western Colonial Targets

Much more difficult, and relying on stable N.African territories - I can see them taking whatever is left once a colonial rush begins.

African Colonial Targets

With Egypt, they are well placed to take over E.Africa, but with N.Africa as well the Byzantines, unless they have some sort of crisis, are best placed to expand in Africa, as they have bases on both coasts!

In all seriousness however, if they have a trade rival establish themselves in S.Africa, expect that to be conquered quickly, as that Indian Ocean trade is going to be a huge source of revenue.

I apologise for getting carried away with Colonial targets - but it seems the next progression after Gunpowder.

 

[Faeelin]

Iraq no, but Egypt yes. The latter provides access to the Indian Ocean, is filthy rich, taking it would be a major boost of prestige and allows for easy contact with Ethiopia. Its too important to be left alone.

But the Byzantines never really made an attempt to seize Egypt in OTL, right? Not under Basil, and not later, except for a brief foray in the 1180s.

The Byzantine Empire's goals will likely include monopolizing the Silk Road terminuses, so Crimea, Armenia and Azerbaijan might be on the table.

This one seems plausible.

S.Italy/Sicily - Reasonable strategic target, and outside of the HRE, and allows them to apply pressure on the Pope to end the Schism.

See, I think this is more likely than the Byzantine conquest of Egypt. It's familiar territory, and the Byzantines would be more focused on Italy (and Venice) than the Turks were.

For instance, what do the Turks care about the fact that a new heresy of Islam took over Persia? Their souls are all damned anyway. But Venice? That's personal.

And why would the Byzantines be more colonial than the Ottomans were? After all, the Ottomans did make some forays into the Indian Ocean in OTL, and they didn't last; and unlike the Byzantines, the Ottomans were co-religionists.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

From the Roman perspective (I refuse to utilize the word 'Byzantine') it's less a conquest and more a liberation of everything you've listed, the Levant, Aegyptus, Sicilia etcetera were all ERE possessions right and proper, assuming the Imperium is powerful enough to fend off the multitudes of literal hordes on their borders it's not impossible to say they would be disinterested in reestablishing Imperial Hegemony over the Mare Nostrum. Beyond that, Ukraine/Eastern Europe perhaps are more truly 'colonial' prospects in expanding the perimeter than going back and taking what essentially the Roman state viewed as 'theirs'.

 

[DominusNovus]

From the Roman perspective (I refuse to utilize the word 'Byzantine') it's less a conquest and more a liberation of everything you've listed, the Levant, Aegyptus, Sicilia etcetera were all ERE possessions right and proper, assuming the Imperium is powerful enough to fend off the multitudes of literal hordes on their borders it's not impossible to say they would be disinterested in reestablishing Imperial Hegemony over the Mare Nostrum. Beyond that, Ukraine/Eastern Europe perhaps are more truly 'colonial' prospects in expanding the perimeter than going back and taking what essentially the Roman state viewed as 'theirs'.

You should probably use the Greek names there, since the Byzantines did themselves.

As far as ruling over heathens, my base instincts are that they'd probably prefer to do so through intermediary client-states.

 

[Mixxer5]

But the Byzantines never really made an attempt to seize Egypt in OTL, right? Not under Basil, and not later, except for a brief foray in the 1180s.

Indeed, but it's not like they had a chance, right? I mean- apart from period between Basil and Manzikert, they were rather occupied, either by Slavs or Muslims. Egypt is very good goal, but a secondary one- Anatolia was Byzantine powerbase and Balkans secured Constantinople. It would be unwise to leave any of these territories unstable/ in foreign hands to capture Egypt. M. Comenos was very active ruler and he had good (not good enough though) oportunity to get it. Other rulers had to secure core territories first.

BTW- I agree mostly with GdwnsnHo list (after all Justinian's empire wasn't such a bad idea- just it's realization was), but I wouldn't totally exclude attempts to secure whole coast of Mediterranean. After all- why not? Monopolizing (again) trade in the basin would be profitable and would push Europeans toward colonies further than otl. At least- would there be any Europeans apart from British

 

[Deleted member 67076]

But the Byzantines never really made an attempt to seize Egypt in OTL, right? Not under Basil, and not later, except for a brief foray in the 1180s.

Basil was allied with the Fatimid dynasty. Why the hell would he betray them? In the 1180s, the situation had changed. To say nothing of OTL is not an ATL. In a world where the Byzantines have dealt with the Balkans and Anatolia well enough Egypt, Italy and the Levant are the next logical steps. They never really considered them anything but provinces that were under occupation after all.

As well, the Byzantine state's affairs were usually on things closer to home. Manuel was different in that regard in which he focused outward. If it was other emperors, the primary focus would be to take back Anatolia. All else would be secondary.

See, I think this is more likely than the Byzantine conquest of Egypt. It's familiar territory, and the Byzantines would be more focused on Italy (and Venice) than the Turks were.

Nothing says you can't do both. It really depends on whos managing things.

That said, Egypt was really, really fucking rich. It alone made over 25% of the Ottoman state budget around 1600, at the height of their empire. To ignore that when its so close to you... is foolish.

For instance, what do the Turks care about the fact that a new heresy of Islam took over Persia? Their souls are all damned anyway. But Venice? That's personal.

You need to consider the geopolitics. Persia is big, poor (thank you Timur) and unwieldy when your power base is the Balkans and Egypt. The Zagros is a nice, easily defensible border and you already have the parts that matter- Mesopotamia and the Gulf.

Venice has that and the fact that it cements control over the Adriatic, provides another terminus of goods into Europe (further monopoly of the trade routes), allows for easier intervention in Europe and grants an amazing port.

And why would the Byzantines be more colonial than the Ottomans were? After all, the Ottomans did make some forays into the Indian Ocean in OTL, and they didn't last; and unlike the Byzantines, the Ottomans were co-religionists.

Possible European Influence and all. Despite what the Romans said they did take influence from Western Culture, especially in the later Comnenoi and Palaiologoi periods.

That and the Ottomans already had what they wanted when they took North Africa. They achieved a monopoly on the Silk Road Terminus and were quite content with their holdings. They (in their view) didn't need colonies.

 

[Thoresby]

On the subject of Western influences a successful Byzantium/Rhomania that is thinking about conquering Egypt etc. is probably going to be much more self-confident culturally than OTL and thus less receptive to outside ideas, whether Western or Eastern.

 

[Tyr]

Weird this thread is posted, earlier today I was just thinking to post WI there was a christian ottoman empire...but that would just be the byzantines so is a bit pointless.

I wouldn't see them just being a replacement Ottomans.
The Ottomans whole thing was the war on christianity and pushing westwards. Byzantium would be quite the opposite, the war on Islam would be its primary motivator with its pushing being generally south and east.

The main interesting thing about a surviving Byzantium IMO is what it means for the development of eastern Europe- just imagine how differently things would go for Hungary, Serbia, etc... without the Turks charging in.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

Without the Ottomans, Islam might not take hold in Bosnia, though there will be a bit of a cold war of sorts between the Byzantines and the Hungarians for influence over the Slavic portions of the Balkans (if not outright conquest)

 

[B_Munro]

Without the Ottomans, Islam might not take hold in Bosnia, though there will be a bit of a cold war of sorts between the Byzantines and the Hungarians for influence over the Slavic portions of the Balkans (if not outright conquest)

If there is no Muslim invasion of the Balkans, I think the chances of Bosnia converting to Islam are fairly remote...

 

[B_Munro]

Perhaps they would also be more inclined to conquer the Crimea outright, and invade Ukraine?

Hooking up with the Russians and creating the Russo-Byzantine empire! From the Nile to the Amur! Bwa ha ha ha!

(BTW, Faeelin, I'm finally finishing up that game map of yours. Sorry I've taken so long about it).

Bruce

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Weird this thread is posted, earlier today I was just thinking to post WI there was a christian ottoman empire...but that would just be the Byzantines so is a bit pointless.

I wouldn't see them just being a replacement Ottomans.
The Ottomans whole thing was the war on Christianity and pushing westwards. Byzantium would be quite the opposite, the war on Islam would be its primary motivator with its pushing being generally south and east.

The main interesting thing about a surviving Byzantium IMO is what it means for the development of eastern Europe- just imagine how differently things would go for Hungary, Serbia, etc... without the Turks charging in.

No it wouldn't. The Ottomans were from their foundation a Ghazi state- one built for religious conquests. The Roman Empire was not that. It was a Christian state but religious conquests were not nearly on the same level of importance to the state that the Ottomans had.

The Romans would take what they needed and not waste their time on pointless wars (most of the time).

They were not a "Christian Ottoman Empire". There were significant differences in their style of governance, policies and mindset that defined their actions and simply attempting to swap one for the other reeks of ignorance and looking at the superficial.

 

[PhilippeO]

if Byzantine managed to become Gunpowder Empire, wouldn't that create Persian Muslim Gunpowder Empire too ? rather than conguering Egypt and Sicily, Byzantine Empire might waste a lot of resources repeating Roman-Persian wars.

Sassanian emerge after Parthian couldn't handle repeated Roman attack. Safavid emerge as rival to Ottoman. there are pattern that Persian would repeat this again ? creating empire to rival their ancient enemy.

there also economic reason too. with Levant controlled byzantine, Silk Road would stop at Baghdad, opening route from Baghdad to Medditerranean would be desired by Persian. if Damascus fallen to Christian, Baghdad would also become caravan center for Islamic pilgrim, there might create desire to re-capture Jerusalem.

 

[Namayan]

if Byzantine managed to become Gunpowder Empire, wouldn't that create Persian Muslim Gunpowder Empire too ? rather than conguering Egypt and Sicily, Byzantine Empire might waste a lot of resources repeating Roman-Persian wars.

Sassanian emerge after Parthian couldn't handle repeated Roman attack. Safavid emerge as rival to Ottoman. there are pattern that Persian would repeat this again ? creating empire to rival their ancient enemy.

there also economic reason too. with Levant controlled byzantine, Silk Road would stop at Baghdad, opening route from Baghdad to Medditerranean would be desired by Persian. if Damascus fallen to Christian, Baghdad would also become caravan center for Islamic pilgrim, there might create desire to re-capture Jerusalem.

That would be a nice incentive for the Romans to skip the Persians. Pharaoh's canal is there for asian colonial possessions.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

And why would the Byzantines be more colonial than the Ottomans were? After all, the Ottomans did make some forays into the Indian Ocean in OTL, and they didn't last; and unlike the Byzantines, the Ottomans were co-religionists.

This is the shorter version of what I wrote last night and forgot to post

Essentially, with the advances in technology that this Empire is on the cusp of achieving, and the emergence of strong merchants/merchant nobility (see italy) across the med, that could certainly come into play in an expanding Byzantine Empire (especially if its Emperor wishes to quell the power of other landholders).

So with merchants who like the East India trade, and the technology to travel further by sea - forays to protect that trade seem inevitable.

Plus, as someone mentioned Persia - what better way to weaken your enemy than denying them Indian Ocean trade revenues? You become stronger, and without fighting a war with them that leads to bitterness.

With an eastern tradition of colonies, and further technology, as long as there is access and tales of New World wealth, then a similar policy, could emerge - especially if a N.Africa holding Byzantine Empire sponsored TTLs 'Colombus'.

 

[Tyr]

No it wouldn't. The Ottomans were from their foundation a Ghazi state- one built for religious conquests. The Roman Empire was not that. It was a Christian state but religious conquests were not nearly on the same level of importance to the state that the Ottomans had.

The Romans would take what they needed and not waste their time on pointless wars (most of the time).

They were not a "Christian Ottoman Empire". There were significant differences in their style of governance, policies and mindset that defined their actions and simply attempting to swap one for the other reeks of ignorance and looking at the superficial.

So they would just let the threat that almost destroyed them get on with its merry business ready to form a new Ottomans to have a go at them?
No, I don't see every emperor being so inclined but it won't be too abnormal for emperors to pop up and dream of wanting to reconquer the empire's lost territories.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

So they would just let the threat that almost destroyed them get on with its merry business ready to form a new Ottomans to have a go at them?
No, I don't see every emperor being so inclined but it won't be too abnormal for emperors to pop up and dream of wanting to reconquer the empire's lost territories.

Well yes they would want to reconquer their lost territories, I don't think he's denying that. But it's not because they are controlled by muslims as much as it is because they are obscenely wealthy and are only seen as occupied provinces in the first place.