How wealthy would a surviving Byzantine Empire be?

Another point to consider: with Byzantine Empire controling the Straits instead of Ottomans, Crimean Tatars will be facing alone against Rus/Russia/Poland-Lithuania - which will probably doom them to being conqured in no later than XVII C. Because of that Ukrainian/South Russian produce (mostly grain) will be exported over Black Sea - and beyond - sooner than OTL. ITTL Byzantines won't need Egypt as a breadbasket - Ukraine will fulfill that role from XVI/XVII C. onwards.
 

trajen777

Banned
I think the summation of this is correct

The When do you start it :

a. 1025 + -- Strong army -- massive economy -- (Basil did not collect the hearth tax for 2 years) - Invasion of Sicily keeps Normans out of the Med. / If a good emperor or if George Manices takes over then you prob can conquer down to Jerusalem (1/2 or more of the population is still Christian) and the coast. If you take Damascus and other other inland cities you have excellent defensible borders. So the Byz military do not face crusades - weak Muslim states strong economy which will only be enhanced by the conquests . So you need to face the Mongols and then you have really no major foe in the future (Tammerlane?)
 
The problem with guessing the wealth of a surviving Byzantine Empire and what its borders would be quite obvious: Byzantium's borders were constantly in flux. Without a POD that leads to a surviving Byzantium it makes this even harder to guess.

However, sense the best PODs would be a surviving Macedonian line or a continuing Komnenian POD, I'd say that realistically the Empire's borders could be modern Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia and parts of Serbia. But even then its hard to figure out. After all we can't know how Byzantium would develop technologically over the centuries. We could see an Industrial revolution begin in Constantinople instead of Britain, just for example. Another thing to consider is a surviving Byzantium would potentially mean that the trade between the far east and Europe wouldn't be interrupted, meaning that the shipping lanes around Africa might be less important. This means Byzantium remains wealthier longer.

Another thing to consider is the Renaissance. While I believe it would still happen it might be on a more limited scale. With Byzantium remaining a strong country there would be little reason for Scholars and monks to flee to Italy with the works of antiquity and Byzantium. This means that the Renaissance will either exist on a smaller scale (limited to the works already in the west and books/texts brought over by trade) or will take longer to take root.

While I love the idea of a Byzantium surviving into the modern era and remaining at least at a first world level of wealth, without a proper POD this is next to impossible to guess at. But I will say that the idea that Byzantium would automatically decline thanks to their geographical position is just stupid. The Ottomans controlled similar territory and remained a great power well into the 19th century. So clearly Byzantium could manage to survive and thrive as well.

I don't really buy into the "surviving Byzantium nerfs he Renaissance" concept. If that were true, we'd have to think that an Ottoman conquest of Italy would spur it on even faster, as Italian thinkers flee to the rest of Europe.

Byzantium's going to maintain strong trading ties with the rest of Christendom (stronger than the Turks, for sure), so whatever philosophical, artistic, and technological developments you associate witn the period will likely occur on schedule. Maybe even earlier, with Greece and Anatolia thrown into the mix.
 
Those borders aren't sustainable. The state would have long since been conquered by another power. At minimum one would need either all or most of the Balkans and/or all of Anatolia up to the Tarsus. (Irene's borders)

Strictly speaking, although that border is indeed kinda crappy, Irene's Byzantium only held about 3/4 of Anatolia and a fraction of the Balkans.

Europe_800AD.jpg


But I nitpick. There's a thought: how about a surviving Balkans-based empire? Greece-Bulgaria-Serbia.
 
Piggybacking off of the thread a bit, but what would a modern-day Byzantine Empire be called? Byzantium? Rome? Romania? Rhomania?
 

Rubicon

Banned
Piggybacking off of the thread a bit, but what would a modern-day Byzantine Empire be called? Byzantium? Rome? Romania? Rhomania?
Likely something along the lines of "Greece". As the word Greece and similar words evolved from the latin Graecia to virtually every other European language but Greek.

Notice how Greece today officially calls itself Hellenic Republic but is still called Greece in almost every other country.

What the country might call itself? Would depend upon what form of government it has, but translated to English? Probably Roman Republic or from it's largest ethnicity, so: Hellenic Republic.
 
The Byzantines are in a position where the richer they are the more they'll be attacked. Beating up their enemies also just makes the path easier for the next round of nomads to invade.
 

Deleted member 67076

Piggybacking off of the thread a bit, but what would a modern-day Byzantine Empire be called? Byzantium? Rome? Romania? Rhomania?

Romania is probably the most likely. Officially the Pope called them that- the Romanian Empire. A synonym might be Greece, but in the same way that people call the Netherlands 'Holland'.
 
The Byzantines are in a position where the richer they are the more they'll be attacked. Beating up their enemies also just makes the path easier for the next round of nomads to invade.

So long as they survive the Turks and Mongols... there aren't really too many more nomads to worry about. Gunpowder takes care of that.
 
I don't think arguing over the borders is helpful, all countries won and lost borders between 1204 and when borders were frozen after WW2.

What I want to know is would 4 crop rotation, including nitrogen fixing crops, as well as enclosure work in the heart of modern Greece and Turkey? How much coal, iron, oil and aluminium is there in these heartlands?
 
I don't think arguing over the borders is helpful, all countries won and lost borders between 1204 and when borders were frozen after WW2.

What I want to know is would 4 crop rotation, including nitrogen fixing crops, as well as enclosure work in the heart of modern Greece and Turkey? How much coal, iron, oil and aluminium is there in these heartlands?

Their was enough iron and aluminum in anatolia and caucus and armenia. As for enclosures maybe a stronger pronoia type system but one that lead a to the development of a powerful middle landholding class eg fewer wealthy landed magnates and less subsistamce farmers. HOW to bring about I dont know.

in terms of four crop rotation... perhaps in need of bread and usin
g cherson as base byz moves into Ukraine. but I agree having just Anatolia and balkans four field crop rotation is difficult to achieve due to climate.
 

Deleted member 67076

The Byzantines are in a position where the richer they are the more they'll be attacked. Beating up their enemies also just makes the path easier for the next round of nomads to invade.

Nomads are only really a threat until the 1300s-early 1400s where in which gunpowder changes the dynamics between the two immensely in favor of the Romans. Afterwords they're just a nuisance.
 
And Faeelin, agree with you about the relatively flaccid state of the late Byzantine economy, but saying "they went into decline in the 13th century" is a bit of a cheap shot

I'm just trying to avoid claiming, as so many others are, that the Byzantines were a superpower that were clearly about to reconquer Egypt up until they got their asses kicked by the Turks. And Normans. And Arabic Sicilians. And Bulgars. And a blind octogenarian.

I won't say the Byzantines excel only at dying, but I think some honesty about its real weaknesses would be nice.
 
Nomads are only really a threat until the 1300s-early 1400s where in which gunpowder changes the dynamics between the two immensely in favor of the Romans. Afterwords they're just a nuisance.

Is this for this timeline where Romans are assumed to still control Anatolia and the Balkans or in your timeline?Gunpowder only really became the decisive edge against nomads in the 18th century.You see the Ming Dynasty getting crushed by superior Manchu cavalry despite possessing gunpowder weaponry in the 1600s.Prior to the 18th century where there's significant advances in gunpowder weaponry and tactics,a nomad horse archer can shoot faster and more accurate than a musketeer.
 
Is this for this timeline where Romans are assumed to still control Anatolia and the Balkans or in your timeline?Gunpowder only really became the decisive edge against nomads in the 18th century.You see the Ming Dynasty getting crushed by superior Manchu cavalry despite possessing gunpowder weaponry in the 1600s.Prior to the 18th century where there's significant advances in gunpowder weaponry and tactics,a nomad horse archer can shoot faster and more accurate than a musketeer.

Portugese Cannon did frustrate the Manchu on a few occasions; the Ming's fall had more to do with Li Zichen and bad governance from the Dynasty overall.
 
Portugese Cannon did frustrate the Manchu on a few occasions; the Ming's fall had more to do with Li Zichen and bad governance from the Dynasty overall.

Generally during sieges,but when it comes to field battles where mobility is essential,the Ming gets whipped around like in the Battle of Sarhu despite being armed with gunpowder weapons.
 
Portugese Cannon did frustrate the Manchu on a few occasions; the Ming's fall had more to do with Li Zichen and bad governance from the Dynasty overall.
Well the Byzantines weren't exactly known for maintaining productive dynasties for too long. The Byzantines could well fall like China or India did centuries later.
 
I think the summation of this is correct

The When do you start it :

a. 1025 + -- Strong army -- massive economy -- (Basil did not collect the hearth tax for 2 years) - Invasion of Sicily keeps Normans out of the Med. / If a good emperor or if George Manices takes over then you prob can conquer down to Jerusalem (1/2 or more of the population is still Christian) and the coast. If you take Damascus and other other inland cities you have excellent defensible borders. So the Byz military do not face crusades - weak Muslim states strong economy which will only be enhanced by the conquests . So you need to face the Mongols and then you have really no major foe in the future (Tammerlane?)

Egypt was also not-quite-overwhelmingly majority still Copt by around then, still. Exact figures might or might not exist (seriously, I don't know), but I've heard 70% or more bandied about before.

Of course, the Coptic Christians aren't necessarily going to be on the greatest of terms with the Orthodox Byzantines. They're going to be used to the extensive self-government that relatively tolerant Muslim government had given them, an Emperor who rolled in and tried to change that is going to face some problems. You'd need an Emperor who is going to understand this to take Egypt (and the Levant, for that matter), and be willing to make compromises against what are probably going to be some very passionate wishes coming out of his own Church's hierarchy.

And not only that, but you're going to need Emperors to KEEP understanding this for quite some time. An Emperor who lets zeal get the better of him who tries to push on the 'heretics' in Egypt and Syria is going to have some of the same problems a recent conqueror would have.

I actually like the idea of the Romans being able to take the old Diocese of the East sometime in the Middle Ages (Nikephorus sounds the most plausible: He had the means and intention to do so, just got killed before he actually could) but losing it during a period of instability at home. If the Turks roll off the step to face a powerful empire that has only loosely held the East for a few generations, they might still have the ability to remove that territory for themselves. Maybe have portions of the area taken and lost again until something analogous to the Mongols comes around and causes a real crisis, breaking the cycle and leaving the Byzantines locked out of the East until it's ready to go all Gunpowder Empire everyone around them.

Syria, Palestine, and Egypt retain much larger Christian populations because Muslim dominance is much less continuous, so by the time develop somewhere begins to move on into modern economics, the Byzantines are an Eastern Mediterranean powerhouse who just has to play some catch-up, rather than being permanently relegated to being Greece + Bulgaria + Turkey.

I don't really buy into the "surviving Byzantium nerfs he Renaissance" concept. If that were true, we'd have to think that an Ottoman conquest of Italy would spur it on even faster, as Italian thinkers flee to the rest of Europe.

Byzantium's going to maintain strong trading ties with the rest of Christendom (stronger than the Turks, for sure), so whatever philosophical, artistic, and technological developments you associate witn the period will likely occur on schedule. Maybe even earlier, with Greece and Anatolia thrown into the mix.

Well, the interesting thing is that a lot of the intellectual creativity that characterized the late Byzantine period in Mistra is probably a result of the declining central power. A powerful Empire might well just stick with the old schtick of 'keep copying Antiquity, do nothing new, nothing new can be better'. It often takes crisis for people to look for new answers and deep crisis for them to not be slapped down for questioning the old ones.
 
Top