How would Byzantine ethnic/religious picture look like if they survive ?

Yep, another thread on them, sorry:D.

But I was thinking on them and two empires for this
1) The surviving empire in the almost intact borders of old, encompassing Egypt and Levant. Would they all be orthodox, or something else as well. Arameic and Coptic would still be in wide use but how much of the population would call themselves "Hellens" or "Greeks". What do you think?

2) Second would be the empire in borders of 11 cent., in control of things south of Danube and Bosnia and whole of Anatolia, reversing Manzikert, all that jazz. On the east of this empire there are Armenians but also I presume the ever constant stream of Turkic peoples who would also be encompassed with assimilation in the centuries to come. And there are also Bulgarians, Albanians and Serbs, would anyone of them experience utter assimilation or would they retain their identity?
 
Yep, another thread on them, sorry:D.

But I was thinking on them and two empires for this
1) The surviving empire in the almost intact borders of old, encompassing Egypt and Levant. Would they all be orthodox, or something else as well. Arameic and Coptic would still be in wide use but how much of the population would call themselves "Hellens" or "Greeks". What do you think? [/QUOT]

Aramaic and Coptic would had eventually declined and probably have gone extinct with a surviving Byzantine Empire. There was little prestige in speaking those languages compared to Koine Greek. Expect Egyptiot and Syrian Greek languages to arise instead. And they wouldn't consider themselves Greek but Romans. They even called their language Romaic.

2) Second would be the empire in borders of 11 cent., in control of things south of Danube and Bosnia and whole of Anatolia, reversing Manzikert, all that jazz. On the east of this empire there are Armenians but also I presume the ever constant stream of Turkic peoples who would also be encompassed with assimilation in the centuries to come. And there are also Bulgarians, Albanians and Serbs, would anyone of them experience utter assimilation or would they retain their identity?

I don't expect much assimilation of anybody except maybe the Albanians. The southern Slavs would be constantly rebelling every now and then.
 
Yep, another thread on them, sorry:D.

But I was thinking on them and two empires for this
1) The surviving empire in the almost intact borders of old, encompassing Egypt and Levant. Would they all be orthodox, or something else as well. Arameic and Coptic would still be in wide use but how much of the population would call themselves "Hellens" or "Greeks". What do you think?

Chalcedonian Orthodoxy would probably be a majority faith, but I doubt it'd have an overwhelming dominance. Call the population of the Empire perhaps 60-70% Chalcedonian, with large minorities of other Christian sects. This does, of course, presume religion wouldn't change in the intervening fourteen centuries, which doesn't seem particularly likely.

It's very unlikely more than a tiny minority of the population would call itself Greek. That minority would be a fraction of the intellectual elite, and nobody else.

2) Second would be the empire in borders of 11 cent., in control of things south of Danube and Bosnia and whole of Anatolia, reversing Manzikert, all that jazz. On the east of this empire there are Armenians but also I presume the ever constant stream of Turkic peoples who would also be encompassed with assimilation in the centuries to come. And there are also Bulgarians, Albanians and Serbs, would anyone of them experience utter assimilation or would they retain their identity?
Anatolia is largely Greek speaking, and the Balkans will become so- Bulgarian and Serbian languages lack the prestige factor when compared to Greek- "Romanish", the Imperial language. The Slavs might concievably retain something of an ethnic identity, particularly the Bulgars, but I don't think it's by any means certain that they will. The Slavic communities of Greece that historically experienced several centuries under Imperial rule did not maintain a Slavic identity, after all. Nor did the large Slavic populations transferred to Anatolia in the seventh and eighth centuries.

Armenians will probably avoid total assimilation, unless Armenia and the Caucasus are absorbed in their entirety by the Empire, which is difficult to do. Religious differences and a much stronger national identity will allow them to cope much better than the Slavs with standing up to the challenge of "Hellenisation" (or whatever you want to call it). Even so, they'll be a very small minority, perhaps rather akin to the Jews.
 
The difference between the deported communities in Anatolia and the Bulgars is that the former was specifically subjected to a measure that would have forced its assimilation, while the latter settled there naturally and had quite a history to look back upon for some pride.

Also, I'm not really sure how long Byzantium can hold Egypt after how ridiculously damaged they were following both Justinian's plague and the Persian wars.
 
The difference between the deported communities in Anatolia and the Bulgars is that the former was specifically subjected to a measure that would have forced its assimilation, while the latter settled there naturally and had quite a history to look back upon for some pride.
Yes indeed, I did specifically say that the Bulgars could concievably be an exception to the general process of assimilation. But even then, the whole history of the Bulgarian state, certainly after the conversion of Boris, is a history of "Hellenisation", with the Bulgarians adopting more and more Byzantine practises. There might be a Bulgarian identity that survives, but I doubt it'll be anything particularly major.

Also, I'm not really sure how long Byzantium can hold Egypt after how ridiculously damaged they were following both Justinian's plague and the Persian wars.
But what else is there for Egypt to do, politically? The governing classes have had the best part of a millenium looking towards a Hellenised, Mediterranean world dominated by Rome, and they'll continue to see their world through that prism of the Roman world. Many of the revolts against the Arabs were because the traditional Roman links from the Imperial elite right down to the peasantry had been cut by the Arab conquest and Islamic law. An independent Egypt could well have much the same problem. I simply don't think anyone would be able to conceive of a "free Egypt".
 
But what else is there for Egypt to do, politically? The governing classes have had the best part of a millenium looking towards a Hellenised, Mediterranean world dominated by Rome, and they'll continue to see their world through that prism of the Roman world. Many of the revolts against the Arabs were because the traditional Roman links from the Imperial elite right down to the peasantry had been cut by the Arab conquest and Islamic law. An independent Egypt could well have much the same problem. I simply don't think anyone would be able to conceive of a "free Egypt".

Might they not look back to Ptolemaic Egypt? Not a "Free Egypt", but a Greeco-Roman Egyptian empire, with prospects for expansion in North Africa and competition for Syria, perhaps hoping (but ultimately failing) to conquer Constantinople?

Bruce

PS- one wonders if they might conquer Italy, or at least parts of it - Rome ruled from Alexandria?
 
Perhaps during some period of civil strife, the Egyptians raise their own Emperor to rule them and they establish a "Southern Roman Empire" instead of a "Free Egypt"?

OTL saw the Gallic Empire in which a would-be usurper got stuck in Gaul and ruled it as an independent Roman state for awhile. TTL could see something similar in Egypt.
 
Perhaps during some period of civil strife, the Egyptians raise their own Emperor to rule them and they establish a "Southern Roman Empire" instead of a "Free Egypt"?

OTL saw the Gallic Empire in which a would-be usurper got stuck in Gaul and ruled it as an independent Roman state for awhile. TTL could see something similar in Egypt.


That's kinda of what I was thinking, perhaps an emperor dies suddenly and there is a disputed succession? The emperors in Constantinople and Alexandria each want to reunite the empire, but there's a stalemate, other problems (say, Persians) intervene and the situation becomes long-term...

Bruce
 
That's kinda of what I was thinking, perhaps an emperor dies suddenly and there is a disputed succession? The emperors in Constantinople and Alexandria each want to reunite the empire, but there's a stalemate, other problems (say, Persians) intervene and the situation becomes long-term...

Bruce

That, I would say, is probably the best way to do it.
 
Top