How successful can a powerful Byzantium be during the Industrial Age?

To be fair, although the Age of Miracles Rome goes on Justinian-style reconquest of Egypt and Italy, they lose it after 2 generations and don't expand beyond Armenia and the Levant.

Doesn't Age of Miracles start in the 1300s or something ridiculous like that?
 
Maybe drop of a hat was a bit extreme, but in historical terms they seemed to assimilate fairly quickly.

Still, the way the Byzantines lurched from disaster to systematic disaster occasionally being saved by super leaders out of the blue is not a good model for long term stability. Run history again and I'd be amazed if they lasted as long as OTL more that 20% of the time. I mean heck if the POD is no Mohammed that could easily see butterflies that mean the 626 Siege of Constantinople succeeds or at least Heraclius' counter offensive failing.

They walked the tightrope too often.

Personally I agree in some ways; Byzantium had serious internal problems and I don't like how often people ignore it. However, I don't think it could just collapse and there were hints of serious internal change (the Monothelite Compromise being part of this) before the Arab Conquests. And the 626 siege was a panic decision, not a rational planned thing. It was in reaction to Heraclius flanking Xusro II and there was no way it could have worked.

Persia was horrifically overstretched by 626 and just didn't have the troops to counter Heraclius, to be honest.

The PoD is a more successful Laskarid Dynasty that ensures the Empire recovers from the Fourth Crusade, then integrates the Turks. Again, very optimistic.

Oi vey. Probably won't bother then. I'm not a Byzantophile so I can't really get into the understandable appeal some people have about Byzantium having the luck of the draw over and over again.
 
Oi vey. Probably won't bother then. I'm not a Byzantophile so I can't really get into the understandable appeal some people have about Byzantium having the luck of the draw over and over again.

Well, it's also one of, if not the, best written TLs on this site, so I'd still recommend it. Theodoros Komnenos is perhaps my favorite AH character ever made.
 
Personally I agree in some ways; Byzantium had serious internal problems and I don't like how often people ignore it. However, I don't think it could just collapse and there were hints of serious internal change (the Monothelite Compromise being part of this) before the Arab Conquests. And the 626 siege was a panic decision, not a rational planned thing. It was in reaction to Heraclius flanking Xusro II and there was no way it could have worked.

Persia was horrifically overstretched by 626 and just didn't have the troops to counter Heraclius, to be honest.

Well I admit I'm not an expert on the details. I just know that the Byzantines kept having huge disasters that they barely recovered from (one of the places they truly followed Rome's lead, at least the later Empire). The fact that a lot of these recoveries seemed to revolve around amazing leaders spring up seems like OTL was a Byzantine wank when pretty well every historical trend stated they were doomed. Not as bad as the Axis and their ridiculous luck against far more powerful foes, but still something that would be ridiculed if someone wrote it on here. Almost like there were two writers, one was like "yeah, let's just stop having those guys" and the other was like "no see, they're awesome and recover". Eventually the writer in charge of France and Italy was like "I'm tired of you two bickering, my armies are going to smash the Byzantines into little bits, even if it's basically OOC".
 
Well I admit I'm not an expert on the details. I just know that the Byzantines kept having huge disasters that they barely recovered from (one of the places they truly followed Rome's lead, at least the later Empire). The fact that a lot of these recoveries seemed to revolve around amazing leaders spring up seems like OTL was a Byzantine wank when pretty well every historical trend stated they were doomed. Not as bad as the Axis and their ridiculous luck against far more powerful foes, but still something that would be ridiculed if someone wrote it on here. Almost like there were two writers, one was like "yeah, let's just stop having those guys" and the other was like "no see, they're awesome and recover". Eventually the writer in charge of France and Italy was like "I'm tired of you two bickering, my armies are going to smash the Byzantines into little bits, even if it's basically OOC".

That's a.... different way of looking at things.

Byzantium went through cyclical stages: Glory, Stagnation, Disaster, Recovery, then Glory again. They had very good leaders during the recovery and Glory periods, but during the disaster periods they also had some of the worst leaders on the planet in charge. Overall, though, they weathered this rollercoaster of ups and downs, until eventually they simply faced too much at once (Having the Angeloi, Greedy Crusaders, Turkish invaders, and Norman raiders all at once just seems a little unfair). Byzantium had weathered similar storms in the past, but this time, disaster was followed by further disaster and when recovery came, it could no longer be followed by glory.... This was by no means inevitable, it's just how history turned out.
 
That's a.... different way of looking at things.
It's the 'not really serious but fun' way which I like to employ from time to time.

Byzantium went through cyclical stages: Glory, Stagnation, Disaster, Recovery, then Glory again. They had very good leaders during the recovery and Glory periods, but during the disaster periods they also had some of the worst leaders on the planet in charge. Overall, though, they weathered this rollercoaster of ups and downs, until eventually they simply faced too much at once (Having the Angeloi, Greedy Crusaders, Turkish invaders, and Norman raiders all at once just seems a little unfair). Byzantium had weathered similar storms in the past, but this time, disaster was followed by further disaster and when recovery came, it could no longer be followed by glory.... This was by no means inevitable, it's just how history turned out.
Yeah, what sets the Byzantines apart was the shear frequency of Glory and Disaster. Most nations seem to have a lot more stagnation and recovery periods for each glory and disaster. The Byzantines seemed to jump from disaster to glory a huge amount. The other issue though is a lot of the disasters seemed more difficult to avoid than the glories.
 
Yeah, what sets the Byzantines apart was the shear frequency of Glory and Disaster. Most nations seem to have a lot more stagnation and recovery periods for each glory and disaster. The Byzantines seemed to jump from disaster to glory a huge amount. The other issue though is a lot of the disasters seemed more difficult to avoid than the glories.

Taking probably the last big example-

Manzikert and the rapid loss of most of Anatolia was surely a disaster. This was certainly not inevitable; had the Seljuks been deterred anywhere beforehand it is likely they could have been kicked out of Anatolia.

Alexios Komnenos would soon seize power, and start the recovery. Over time, the invading Normans would be driven out, and with the help of the First Crusade most of Western and Northern Anatolia were recovered. Nothing miraculous here, the Byzzies could rely on the local populace for help and the Crusaders stabbed them in the back anyways.

Under John Komnenos, the Glory came. He was able to expand consistently and seize most of Southern Anatolia as well as expanding the Roman sphere of influence. This would have lasted a lot longer had Manuel Komnenos not ruined the Empire.

There was then stagnation under Manuel, who ruined the Byzantine economy with carefree spending and completely destroyed what was left of native Greek power in the army.

After his death, this was followed by disaster, as all kinds of nobles plotted for the throne and the Normans and Turks took advantage of this chaos.

None of this was inevitable, and I have repeatedly made the argument that had Manuel Komnenos not come to power Rome would have experienced a much longer period of glory and a much calmer disaster. I'll get off my soap box now.:D
 
I'm am not well versed, but understanding of the industrial revolution era, and of Eastern Roman history, so when I pose the idea of using sugar husks/manure mix in a sans coal situation, I'm just outside looking in.

This fuel solution is doubly beneficial as it would give a new commodity, which an agricultural state would have, instead of coal, for regions with small or no deposits, as well as have the connotations of a proto-green energy mentality.

As I write this it occurs to me the Rhomani had a versed understanding of petrochemicals with Naphtha being documented since before Heracles. Lubricants and fuels for industrial growth it seems are not that far from reach, if coal is the big turn for industrial development.
 
Top