Let's say that the empire avoids the Byzantine-Sasanian war and manages to repel the Arab invasion to the best of their ability. After that they have a series of competent military emperors (not necessarily consecutively) that reconquer as much of Europe and North Africa as logistically possible. Provide no spectacular screw ups by the Byzantine government, what is the largest possible amount of land that can be held up to 1900?
 
I mean, the world is so drastically different that any guess is a good one.

But I've always thought that a stable, long term Byzantine Empire is basically Basil II's borders - Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Albania, North Macedonia and parts of Armenia, Syria, Serbia. Possibility of Lebanon/Israel/Palestine, especially by the coast.

Everything else is probably a bridge too far.
 
I mean, the world is so drastically different that any guess is a good one.

But I've always thought that a stable, long term Byzantine Empire is basically Basil II's borders - Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Albania, North Macedonia and parts of Armenia, Syria, Serbia. Possibility of Lebanon/Israel/Palestine, especially by the coast.

Everything else is probably a bridge too far.
Which is why I'm focusing exclusively on what they can hold in a best case scenario with no surprise conquerors. If we assume the seljuks still happen though would either a rebound or even a successful repulsion be possible?
 
I think pre-Justinian ERE would be pretty stable, though anything more than that would be dependent on highly variable circumstances that could easily go either way for the Romans. Post-gothic wars Italy for instance was way too much of a sinkhole to not fall against someone or the other, the moment Constantinople looked another way. You'd need some pre-Gothic war PoD to retain it. Africa was pretty stable though, so there's that.

As for less, I don't think that retaining Egypt is too far a stretch to imagine. They did manage to do this for 6 centuries. And even after the Islamic conquests, there were several strong attempts to return to Roman rule, supported by the native Copts. And if they have Egypt securely enough, Palestine and Syria can also be retained.
 
Last edited:
Let's say that the empire avoids the Byzantine-Sasanian war and manages to repel the Arab invasion to the best of their ability. After that they have a series of competent military emperors (not necessarily consecutively) that reconquer as much of Europe and North Africa as logistically possible. Provide no spectacular screw ups by the Byzantine government, what is the largest possible amount of land that can be held up to 1900?
I think even with a late 12th century pod there was you can make a big byzantine empire if industrialization occur and the muslim world doesn't you can via industrial advantage make a big colonial empire
 
Last edited:
I think even with a late 12th century pod there was you can make a big byzantine empire if industrialization occur and the muskoka world doesn't you can via industrial advantage make a big colonial empire
I'm pretty sure that the Byzantines would be more continental focused than having any aspirations on Canada. The Caribbean maybe, but Canada?
 
I'm pretty sure that the Byzantines would be more continental focused than having any aspirations on Canada. The Caribbean maybe, but Canada?
oh mispelled muslim world lol nah the byzantines would have more eastern colonies ie the red sea taking chunks of costal african and india .
 
oh mispelled muslim world lol nah the byzantines would have more eastern colonies ie the red sea taking chunks of costal african and india .
I'm not sure if Iran would've been weak enough to just conquer and even if the Industrialized Byzantines could go Bismarck on the middle east India might be overextending it a little.
 
I'm not sure if Iran would've been weak enough to just conquer and even if the Industrialized Byzantines could go Bismarck on the middle east India might be overextending it a little.
i would see an industrialize byzantine empire make iran a puppet with russia and the other colonial powers with spheres of influence , the whole of india not but certiantly local ports of chunks of it i mean if they have control over the red sea and are industralized it would be a good invesment it would depende on the leadership of the time
 
If the Romans have a great empire in Eastern Europe and the Near East, I'm not sure they would bother will colonial expansion. They would probably focus on expanding their contiguous holdings, similar to the Russians and Persians.
 
If the Romans have a great empire in Eastern Europe and the Near East, I'm not sure they would bother will colonial expansion. They would probably focus on expanding their contiguous holdings, similar to the Russians and Persians.
I say why not the ottomans wanted a colonial empire (or at least pondered it ) with industrial technology conquering less advanced arab , sub saharan africans and indians especially if a balance of power occurs similar to the otl 19th century
 
I say why not the ottomans wanted a colonial empire (or at least pondered it ) with industrial technology conquering less advanced arab , sub saharan africans and indians especially if a balance of power occurs similar to the otl 19th century

Colonizing is hard. Many colonies failed due to disease, indigenous attacks, harsh climate, or attacks from other colonial powers. To be a colonial power you need a strong navy, which may be expensive if you also need a strong army (for your land empire).
 
I think even with a late 12th century pod there was you can make a big byzantine empire if industrialization occur and the muslim world doesn't you can via industrial advantage make a big colonial empire
I can't see them leading the industrializing push in a large autocratic empire. But potentially they could copy others. Russia is likely the best analogue.
 
I see no reason why a surviving Byzantine Empire, especially one that does not lose many of its richest territories to Arab invasions, cannot be at minimum as successful as the Ottomans in terms of territorial expansion and stability. In fact, I'd argue that the Byzantines are better poised to do so compared to their Ottoman counterparts, in large part due to their assimilationist tendencies and geopolitical advantages. Our hypothetical Byzantines don't have to deal with many of the geopolitical challenges that plagued the Ottomans in OTL, such as revulsion by the Western powers and a big angry Russia breathing down their neck. Assuming the Great Schism is prevented and the Rus adopt Orthodoxy as in OTL, it's possible for the Eastern Romans to be on cordial terms with their Christian neighbors instead of being viewed as an existential threat as the Turks were. With these geopolitical threats removed and with greater access to Western technology and military developments, the Byzantines are well-positioned to be the long-term undisputed masters of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, with firm control over the Balkans, Anatolia, Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Caucuses -- all united under a common Roman civic identity. I suppose there's an argument to be made that the age of nationalism would cause the state to splinter, but I just don't see it. Nationalism didn't really start taking off until after Napoleon, and if the Byzantines haven't made good Romans out of their subjects in the almost 1300 years between the Arab invasions and 1900, then they will have seriously dropped the ball.

This isn't to say that everything will be smooth-sailing for the Romans, or that every region they conquer will happily cast aside their identity for a shiny new one, but it will get done. With enough oppression, state brutality, ethnic cleansing, and over a thousand years to work with, the Romans absolutely can maintain at the very least the Eastern Mediterranean indefinitely.
 
Last edited:
Colonizing is hard. Many colonies failed due to disease, indigenous attacks, harsh climate, or attacks from other colonial powers. To be a colonial power you need a strong navy, which may be expensive if you also need a strong army (for your land empire).
a pre industralized colonial empire sure an industralized one not likely i mean brittian could not filed more than 40 000 troops in north america yet 120 yeara later it used 1/4 of a million man to subue the boer republics so yeah industralization makes colonization easier if the other powers have not caugth up also modern medicine allows for the disease part to be combated ( not that the red sea area had disease like other parts of africa )
 
Last edited:
I can't see them leading the industrializing push in a large autocratic empire. But potentially they could copy others. Russia is likely the best analogue.
i said they would industrailize not that they would be the first , how ever the russian comparison while it makes sense its not fully accurate , the russian empire had diferent enconomy than the olt byzantine empire and would most likely be diferent having a bigger % of their economy in their merchants not fully on agriculture
it had already high litreacy rates and had more free labour (slavary was declining in the byzantine empire not saying it would be abolished soon but it just was not used as much ) and serfedom really never evolved to the extent of western europe

so i see them industralizing much sooner than the russian empire of the otl.
 
Last edited:
i said they would industrailize not that they would be the first , how ever the russian comparison while it makes sense its not fully accurate , the russian empire had diferent enconomy than the olt byzantine empire and would most likely be diferent having a bigger % of their economy in their merchants not fully on agriculture
it had already high litreacy rates and had more free labour (slavary was declining in the byzantine empire not saying it would be abolished soon but it just was not used as much ) and serfedom really never evolved to the extent of western europe

so i see them industralizing much sooner than the russian empire of tanalogies.

Good points. But how much did Greece or Turkey or Yugoslavia or Bulgaria industrialize?
 
If they can keep Italy what are the odds of them holding Southern France, Iberia, and Northwest Africa? Since they seem to be doing good so far I wanted to check the limit.
 
Good points. But how much did Greece or Turkey or Yugoslavia or Bulgaria industrialize?
this a good point some who all traditional chirstian lands that were not under occupation undustrialized i cant say why but it happend , turkey was modernizing but the ottoman empire did have a diferent economy to the byzantine one and had problems related to uniquely to them , (because bad leadership can occur with the alt byzantines) a good example is how the byzantines were better at assimilation ( after all they made the south slavs hellenize despite them rulling the place for centuries )

as for greece well it had been under ottoman rule for so long it did not have that much materials and it was ruled for so long by an agrarian power like the ottomans , greece in many ways ended its war of independance like latin america , bankrupt and with civil wars and control by other colonial empires , this combined with the ethnic tentions due to the muslims and also conflict with other countries it still despite all that mananged to modernize to an extent .

2) many parts of yugosliavia had something similar to greece and some of them just became occupied by the austrians

3) the case of bulgaria is similar the ottoman control collapsed creating chaos with some towns improving it got independance in 1870 and ....became a political battle debate of how much would the russian control but it still grew a lot till the second balkan war and ww1 ruined it
 
If they can keep Italy what are the odds of them holding Southern France, Iberia, and Northwest Africa? Since they seem to be doing good so far I wanted to check the limit.
If your goal is long-term stability then I think expanding into the old western territories is a mistake. Rome's best course of action is to solidify its control in the east, where Constantinople serves as a natural geographic center from which to control the Balkans and the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean. There's a reason Diocletian split the empire. Trying to control far-flung territories such as Iberia and France serves only to overextend the Romans and lead to further instability. If you are going to expand further west, then I think more reasonable additions would be Africa and Sicily, with the rest of Italy set up as a client state.
 
Last edited:
Top