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 wrote a story based on a surviving Byzantium, though I think mine was Comemnian

At some point they will be able to outfight Persia, so expansion there is a definite possibility
 
So what would be the ideal modernized Byzantine government?
I always imagine it to be like the one depicted in Starship Troopers, with the voting rights and government jobs restricted to veterans. Maybe the senate here could be comprised of Flag officers and Senior Administration. Since it would be an orthodox empire, let's say the priesthood is also eligible for government jobs and its leadership would also have a representation in the senate. The top job would probably operate as it did in the Soviet Union or still does in the PRC- selected with the consent of the factions with the most power and influence at the moment.
Effectively a legitimized military regime, but one based on constitutionalism. That last part is tricky since there is no precedence for it, but then the Roman Empire always had a history of legalism, so a constitution in the modern era is not unimaginable.
 
Stable dynastic succession with a family both huge and competent like the capetians from France.
Would the Amorian dynasty work; and if not is there a better suited dynasty or would it be a competent bloodline that didn't take power otl?

I always imagine it to be like the one depicted in Starship Troopers, with the voting rights and government jobs restricted to veterans. Maybe the senate here could be comprised of Flag officers and Senior Administration. Since it would be an orthodox empire, let's say the priesthood is also eligible for government jobs and its leadership would also have a representation in the senate. The top job would probably operate as it did in the Soviet Union or still does in the PRC- selected with the consent of the factions with the most power and influence at the moment.
Effectively a legitimized military regime, but one based on constitutionalism. That last part is tricky since there is no precedence for it, but then the Roman Empire always had a history of legalism, so a constitution in the modern era is not unimaginable.
Why veterans out of curiosity? Also would a constitutional monarchy with an emperor from a great bloodline as head of state and an elected president for life as head of government improve stability at all?
 
Keeping Armenia as a buffer state is a prudent strategy, but the situation leading up to the the Battle of Manizikert was in no way inevitable. Under Empress Theodora previous Turkish raids were dealt with swiftly.
It wasn't necessarily "inevitable," but it was not accidental -- imo the fact that Manzikert sent the Empire tipping into civil war and saw it lose much of its heartland was strongly indicative of the rot within the political apparatus. The conflict between the dynatoi and the civil bureaucracy of the capital at the expensive of the peasants was never really solved; not even Basil II, despite his attacks on the dynatoi, failed to find a suitable alternative to the existing system.
Not really. The Empire was an republican monarchy whereby the Emperor was acclaimed by the will of the "Senate and the people of Rome." In practice that meant the army. This had been the case for over a millennium, so that's not a very likely scenario.
I think terms like "republican monarchy" and "absolute monarchy" are very anachronistic for describing the Byzantine Empire -- both are fundamentally modern phenomenons. The reason monarchy has been so long-lasting is because the modern state -- which is able to exert enormous amounts of influence on the day-to-day lives of the common people -- is, well, modern: combine monarchy, the modern state, and a suitable ideology and you more-less get absolute monarchy, which 'republican monarchies' are generally a reaction to. Most of the time the idea that the monarch could do whatever he wanted was unthinkable, especially in bureaucratic, settled states like the Byzantines; while the Byzantine emperor was more powerful than his W. European counterparts, he was certainly not an absolute monarch (and not a republican monarch either).
It was more because the wealthy nobles kept trying to consolidate more land under themselves and this led to them driving off peasant landowners. This sort of left Anatolia depopulated, though Anatolia was never really majority Islamic/Turkish until well after the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Even during the reign of Sultan Osman I,
Islamic, yes (though peasant Islam was a lot different than the orthodox Islam of the capital). Turkish, sort of (it would have been slightly pejorative to call an Anatolian peasant a 'Turk').
 
...competent like the capetians from France.
I don't think the Capetians were necessarily 'competent' -- the first Capetians were virtually powerless and lacked power outside of Paris (and even sometimes inside Paris), which is why dynastic succession became so established -- the throne wasn't very powerful! And when France actually did become an absolute monarchy, the Capetians pretty much did screw up and mismanaged quite a few things, leading to the French Revolution.
 
I don't think the Capetians were necessarily 'competent' -- the first Capetians were virtually powerless and lacked power outside of Paris (and even sometimes inside Paris), which is why dynastic succession became so established -- the throne wasn't very powerful! And when France actually did become an absolute monarchy, the Capetians pretty much did screw up and mismanaged quite a few things, leading to the French Revolution.
The descendants of Hugues Capet stayed on the throne of France for 800 years and also gained the throne of Spain, where they remain today. For a time this was the most powerful house in Europe. Even with the French Revolution taken into account, they had a pretty strong millennium.
 
Why veterans out of curiosity? Also would a constitutional monarchy with an emperor from a great bloodline as head of state and an elected president for life as head of government improve stability at all?
Kinda building on what one of the posters said before, that the 'people' in SPQR was basically the army for most of the later imperial history.

Basically I feel if we are assuming a diverse, multi-ethnic empire surviving to present, we need a very stable system. For ERE that means one where the rights of the citizen-soldiers are not only legally binding, but institutionalized into the very fabric of the state. Also given the dignitas that veterans already had in roman society (atleast under competent regimes), it is easier to hypothesize a situation where their rights are immutably confirmed, as opposed to rights for the populace at large.

As for the top dog, I wasn't really thinking of two separate heads of state and government; more like rival politico-military dynasties who keep gunning for the emperorship. The problem with this system really comes when the power of the emperor becomes so absolute that the rivals are backed into a corner; either you steadily lose everything or you make a play for the throne. In a constitutional system however, where arbitrary exercise of power is limited, rival dynasties wouldnt have the incentive to break the status quo. This would make this system feasible as opposed to earlier times, when it just about guaranteed a civil war everytime an emperor died.
 
Last edited:
Kinda building on what one of the posters said before, that the 'people' in SPQR was basically the army for most of the later imperial history.

Basically I feel if we are assuming a diverse, multi-ethnic empire surviving to present, we need a very stable system. For ERE that means one where the rights of the citizen-soldiers are not only legally binding, but institutionalized into the very fabric of the state. Also given the dignitas that veterans already had in roman society (atleast under competent regimes), it is easier to hypothesize a situation where their rights are immutably confirmed, as opposed to rights for the populace at large.

As for the top dog, I wasn't really thinking of two separate heads of state and government; more like rival politico-military dynasties who keep gunning for the emperorship. The problem with this system really comes when the power of the emperor becomes so absolute that the rivals are backed into a corner; either you steadily lose everything or you make a play for the throne. In a constitutional system however, where arbitrary exercise of power is limited, rival dynasties wouldnt have the incentive to break the status quo. This would make this system feasible as opposed to earlier times, when it just about garunteed a civil war everytime an emperor died.
So this works better than the typical elective monarchy bloodbath then. Any other suggestions to improve stability and longevity?
 
So this works better than the typical elective monarchy bloodbath then. Any other suggestions to improve stability and longevity?
I think as long as different factions have a secure powerbase, and reccuring shots at even more power, most of them would be careful not to rock the boat too much.
As for longevity, if we are to consider China's example, a strong bureaucracy helps a lot. One of the big reasons for the relative continuity through different Chinese empires was the enduring bureaucratic administration. Greater urbanization or even maintaining the urban centres from late antiquity would help the ERE quite a bit in this regard.
 
Still a fairly likely possibility though.

Being an Island does mean it's somewhat safe from mainland invasion if it ever unites; as well as giving it a significant maritime tradition which definitely sets it on the right path.

And that's not even discussing the easily accessible industrial materials like coal, iron, tin, and others which gave Britain an early lead in the Industrial Revolution.
In a TL where the Roman Empire not only survives but remains dominant, there will be major butterflies (no Crusades for one) and there is no guarantee than an island state off the coast of Western Europe will rise to prominence.
Impossible for egypt to go to british. A strong byzantine empire would without a doubt secure Egypt at all costs. The Brits are too far to project power effectivly and even if excluding the butterflies and we still have the british navy the byzantines who if they did control the straits and beat the Venetians and Italians given they would be able to easily cut off the british navies lines of supply.

A strong Byzantine empire that retains anatolia would without a doubt press for Egypt because it is much to important strategically, economically, and also from a political perspective to ignore.

Since you can bet the Byzantines will do whatever possible to secure the red sea and indian ocean trade especially if the new world and cape route opens up since the loss of the red sea trade route would cripple them economically. Basically Egypt would by 1500s become a dagger aimed at the throat of the byzantines and therefore be priority number 1/national interest.

Thus the British will never have Egypt in a Byzantine Empire strong scenario and lets not even get into the potential alliances the Byzantines will have probably with the French and possibly the russians. In a nutshell brits cant power project in eastern med with a strong Byzantium.

Also regarding the Industrial revolution Byzantines already new how to make silk and had a thriving textile sector so if anything I expect textile making technologies to be adopted relativly quickly and while coal would be hard to come by, I think given the sophistication of byzantium which according to some estimates had a 30% I beleie according to brancovic literacy rate in the 11th century, would be easily able to adopt the enlightenment principles especially given their strong embracement of greek traditions (aside from the pagan stuff). So the byzantines can easily industrialize, the only constraint being easy access to Coal which I think can be dealt with if the Byzantines can exploit the resources of East Africa maybe.




As for the Byzantine empire themselves at best I can see them controlling venice and Venetian territories in the med, Southern Italy including Sicily and Naples, Anatolia, the Balkans till Croatia (depends on the strenght of the Hungarian and Austrian Kingdoms) possibly the genoese controlled crimean areas, the Levant, and egypt with colonies being the East African city states/kingdoms such as Adal, Funj, Mozambique etc and possibly also Arabia and also depending on how wanked you want the byzantines to be mesopatamia. and also North Africa.
 
Last edited:
Would the Amorian dynasty work; and if not is there a better suited dynasty or would it be a competent bloodline that didn't take power otl?
Macedonian, Komnenos these were the dynasties that came close to establishing dynastic succession and were competent on average.
I don't think the Capetians were necessarily 'competent' -- the first Capetians were virtually powerless and lacked power outside of Paris (and even sometimes inside Paris), which is why dynastic succession became so established -- the throne wasn't very powerful! And when France actually did become an absolute monarchy, the Capetians pretty much did screw up and mismanaged quite a few things, leading to the French Revolution.
The fact that the early capetians converted france from an elective monarchy to hereditary says a lot about them consider what happened to the HRE before the habsburgs came to power and even then they had to bribe the electors and they were troubles like the war of austrian succession.
True you had some bad eggs in the family but they were competent on average.
Louis VI one of the early capetians was able to bring the nobility to stop harassing the peasants(Look up robber barons) and started to reassert the monarchy.
After Philip II the monarchy basically became an absolute monarchy(Louis XI, Philip IV etc did much to create the modern state of france like fostering trade, building roads) or close to it before the religious wars weakened the monarchy and even then they had Louis XIV to set things right back on track. The incompetent capetians were Louis XV and Louis XVI who did not have much experience and were not taught to be better rulers.
Louis XVII was basically able to rule close to an absolute monarch due to enormous influence over the legislative council as well as competent politics.
He just had the bad luck of having the reactionary Charles X as his heir.
Even then the monarchy was popular they were many pro-monarchy riots in France during the revolution. If Charles X had rallied an army from the countryside it is likely he could have kept the throne for longer.
The orleanists lost throne due to bad econmic policy than anything else as well as the fact that they were perceived to be working for the wealhy people rather than the people.
 
The Brits are too far to project power effectivly

Okay so they can do so all the way in the pacific but the eastern med suddenly becomes ASB why? Assuming anything goes like otl Gibraltar and Malta would be more than enough.

the byzantines who if they did control the straits and beat the Venetians and Italians

Being a naval power in the 16th century and the 19th century are totally different things. Last time I check that region of the world doesn't have an abundance of Iron or Coal to build/fuel their ships with, also their state budget would most definitely be overwhelmingly devoted to their land forces both to defend from abroad as well as to keep all the minorities in line.

cut off the british navies lines of supply.

That entirely depends on how the British operate. If they wait until they have sea supremacy they can just wage attrition warfare by blockading their ports or even just shelling them into submission. Granted they'd probably be able to hold Gallipoli and the Sea of Marmara.

Even so if they attack from the Red Sea (along with the help of a myriad Hashemite Arabs) they could take Egypt from the eastern desert if they so choose.

A strong Byzantine empire that retains anatolia would without a doubt press for Egypt because it is much to important strategically, economically, and also from a political perspective to ignore.

All the more reason they're going to bleed because of it. The more they invest in keeping Egypt down the more they're going to have to pull off from the rest of the Empire.

Since you can bet the Byzantines will do whatever possible to secure the red sea and indian ocean trade especially if the new world and cape route opens up since the loss of the red sea trade route would cripple them economically

They could possibly keep the profits from Indian ocean trade going for years but once India starts to get divvied up (butterflies galore who knows how that'll go) they'll not have anyone left to trade with in substantial amounts. The only way they can stay in the game is if they open up to foreign investment for a canal which even then relegates them to a mere toll station with the small profits that ensue.

Thus the British will never have Egypt in a Byzantine Empire strong

Depends on what a Byzantine "strong" scenario actually is. An ASB level super strong Byzantium that despite literally ever variable going against it still comes out as the dominant power? Or a more reasonable one where they have more or less the same borders as the wanked Byzantium but follow much more logical conclusions on it's industrial, economic, and social base; still fairly strong considering it's OTL fate but not immune to the world.

alliances the Byzantines will have probably with the French and possibly the russians

Depending on whether or not butterflies has allowed a unified Germany or Prussia to form. If not then it's going to have to be one or the other, besides even if the Byzantines stay in power I still have no doubt the Russians would want the prestige of holding Tsargrad; most likely not an outright conquest but some sort of a personal union backed up by the Russian military. An alliance is possible but that would mean shaky relations with the rest of continental Europe(even if France did ally Russia like OTL they would have no qualms overturning such a deal if Russian hordes came anywhere close to the Rhein) who see the combined might as a threat to Europe itself.

Byzantines already new how to make silk and had a thriving textile sector

Yeah so did many Italian cities but they didn't. Producing luxury cloth for the elites mass production of textiles for a booming economy. You might see the state sponsor some developments but besides being late to the game(OTL the designs were guarded fiercely) they also have the problem of seasonal rivers and lack of coal limiting their ability for water and steam power respectively.

the Byzantines can exploit the resources of East Africa maybe.
Honestly with that distance (and before a canal is built too) they'd be better off importing whatever they use.
 
If Byzantine manages to evolve into a state with high level of urbanization and with a dominant merchant class, it'd be better off becoming a republic.

Also regarding the Industrial revolution Byzantines already new how to make silk and had a thriving textile sector so if anything I expect textile making technologies to be adopted relativly quickly and while coal would be hard to come by, I think given the sophistication of byzantium which according to some estimates had a 30% I beleie according to brancovic literacy rate in the 11th century, would be easily able to adopt the enlightenment principles especially given their strong embracement of greek traditions (aside from the pagan stuff). So the byzantines can easily industrialize, the only constraint being easy access to Coal which I think can be dealt with if the Byzantines can exploit the resources of East Africa maybe
The Byzantine Empire never really had a powerful indigenous mercantile class with strong political clout, which is why its trade was eventually dominated by Italian states, especially Venice. It was still fundamentally a rural-based, agricultural empire run by aristocrats, even at its peak, like Rome before it. Such a state would never be suitable for any form of early industrial revolution, especially if it lacks easily accessible coal and iron.
 
Last edited:
region of the world doesn't have an abundance of Iron or Coal to build/fuel their ships with, also their state budget would most definitely be overwhelmingly devoted to their land forces both to defend from abroad as well as to keep all the minorities in line.
Coal
images - 2021-05-02T011448.537.jpeg


Iron is also by no means rare in the borders of modern day turkey .
 
Okay so they can do so all the way in the pacific but the eastern med suddenly becomes ASB why? Assuming anything goes like otl Gibraltar and Malta would be more than enough.



Being a naval power in the 16th century and the 19th century are totally different things. Last time I check that region of the world doesn't have an abundance of Iron or Coal to build/fuel their ships with, also their state budget would most definitely be overwhelmingly devoted to their land forces both to defend from abroad as well as to keep all the minorities in line.



That entirely depends on how the British operate. If they wait until they have sea supremacy they can just wage attrition warfare by blockading their ports or even just shelling them into submission. Granted they'd probably be able to hold Gallipoli and the Sea of Marmara.

Even so if they attack from the Red Sea (along with the help of a myriad Hashemite Arabs) they could take Egypt from the eastern desert if they so choose.



All the more reason they're going to bleed because of it. The more they invest in keeping Egypt down the more they're going to have to pull off from the rest of the Empire.



They could possibly keep the profits from Indian ocean trade going for years but once India starts to get divvied up (butterflies galore who knows how that'll go) they'll not have anyone left to trade with in substantial amounts. The only way they can stay in the game is if they open up to foreign investment for a canal which even then relegates them to a mere toll station with the small profits that ensue.



Depends on what a Byzantine "strong" scenario actually is. An ASB level super strong Byzantium that despite literally ever variable going against it still comes out as the dominant power? Or a more reasonable one where they have more or less the same borders as the wanked Byzantium but follow much more logical conclusions on it's industrial, economic, and social base; still fairly strong considering it's OTL fate but not immune to the world.



Depending on whether or not butterflies has allowed a unified Germany or Prussia to form. If not then it's going to have to be one or the other, besides even if the Byzantines stay in power I still have no doubt the Russians would want the prestige of holding Tsargrad; most likely not an outright conquest but some sort of a personal union backed up by the Russian military. An alliance is possible but that would mean shaky relations with the rest of continental Europe(even if France did ally Russia like OTL they would have no qualms overturning such a deal if Russian hordes came anywhere close to the Rhein) who see the combined might as a threat to Europe itself.



Yeah so did many Italian cities but they didn't. Producing luxury cloth for the elites mass production of textiles for a booming economy. You might see the state sponsor some developments but besides being late to the game(OTL the designs were guarded fiercely) they also have the problem of seasonal rivers and lack of coal limiting their ability for water and steam power respectively.


Honestly with that distance (and before a canal is built too) they'd be better off importing whatever they use.
That is a big claim to say brits can take malta. Maybe giblator but I dont see malta. Dont underestimate the byzantine navy while not the best it could certainly hold its own against the other seafaring states its main weakness was that corrupt dux's during the time of Andronicus Paleologos basically destroyed the navy. The Byzantines easily had fleets of more than 100+ ships. For example under Manuel Komnenus the Byzantine navy numbered I believe 180 ships.

Brit naval power in 19th century may be strong but whats not to say Byzantines cant have the same level of naval power?

England never had a powerful naval tradition till King Henry VII and even then till the 18th century was not dominant when compared to France or Spain. What allowed them to dominate was that post French revolution all the french naval officers for the most part coming from the nobility fled and the french navy was in shambles while in the case of spain mismanagent by the successors of Charles III made it pretty much useless. Compared to that the Byzantines who have a much larger coastline than france controlling egypt and levant and also southern Italy and will be much more difficult to crack for the British. it is one thing to project power against states without strong naval traditions or those that are undergoing crisis and turmoil but another against states with a strong navy. You seem to be of the school of thought that Britain was inevitable in its rise and its navy was always super strong. I will say the opposite it is asb for Britain to beat a strong byzantine empire in the eastern med!

Also lol even a greatly weakened Ottoman empire was able to protect itself from the Brits in WWI at least the straits of Constantinople. Heard of the failed landing at Galipoli. So that argument doesnt work.

Also as golden pointed out there is coal places in turkey and east Africa. Egypt was not a money sink by the way it was quite the rich area and very profitable.

Regarding byzantine economy read the excellent work by Angelou: The Economic History of Byzantium
From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century
Angeliki E. Laiou

It is an excellent introductory text. Note that recent scholarship on Byzantium post Warren Treadgold another excellent Historian fyi and http://www.roiw.org/2006/2006-22.pdf here is a great study by Branco Milanovic at the world bank that examined the Byzantne economy and also income inequality etc.

Regarding byzantien maritime trade please check out the following from Cambridge Core:https://www.cambridge.org/core/book...th-centuries/8E6016026137A22BCE43F88422C89144 although you can only access abstract it is a good text that examines the martime trade of the byzantine empire.

Byzantium had everything needed for industrialization the problem is that unfortunately due to scholarship by biased and outdated historians like Gibbons and Voltaire much of western European historical circles has always had a negative view of the Byzantine empire or followed a view of it as a state of rural landholders and an aristocracy. But recent research in the field of Byzantine historiography clearly shows the opposite findings. And also regarding the pwoer of the italian merchants they only became strong because of the golden bulls issued by Alexius Komnenus and succeding emperors giving Italians preference in trade and commerce this destroyed the ability of the native Byzantines to compete and that is why the Italian merchants dominated trade in the region not because they were naturally more better at trade than Byzantine merchants. From the start Byzantine merchants were handicapped by the state and again mainly because the state was in dire financial straits. You can expect in a strong byzantine state for said preferences to be rescineded.

France and Byzantium by the way had excellent relations heck Manuel arranged a marriage with the King of France for his son and Agnes. Also both France and Byzantium had a common rival/enemy in the HRE. As for Russia, Butterflies will mean we wont get otl russia anyway because otl russia was defined by its identity as third rome following the end of the byzantine empire. In this scenario Byzantium never falls so that identity never takes shape in Russia hence russia will be focused in otl on the steppes, siberia and eastern europe such as Poland and also Finland and the Ukraine area and will most likely have friendly relations with the byzantines since the Poles and Hungarians would probably have a much closer relationship like otl pre Hungary unifying with Austria.

Thus given the state of the byzantine economy and also the recent work which has shown that byzantium wasn't an aristocratic autocratic empire but rather an empire that derived its legitimacy from the people with the emperor viewed as a steward rather than a king, Byzantium can easily compete. And as for rebellions it is unlikely.
In otl minorities were not persecuted that much in the byzantine empire. Heck Constantinople had many mosques. And regarding anti-latin sentiment in a scenario where the latins arent given preferential rights or such rights are rescinded the basis of the anti-latin sentiment would not be there or a strong norman threat.

As for India being divvied up, I expect the byzantines to be involved in India just as Ottomans were in Gujarat for example prior to their loss to the Portuguese in the Indian ocean. And besides I dont see any reason why the Byzantines wont set up their own east india companies. They can use the red sea coastline to build the ships.

Really it all comes down to butterflies and how author wants to write there tl but Byzantium as we know in the modern scholarship is a state that was well on its way to industriaze and had the conditions to do so at least pre-Manzikert and even post manzikert but pre establishment of the pronia system by Alexius Komnenus and the issuence of favorable golden bulls by the byzantines to the italian city states.

To be fair Byzantine was largely rural but compared to most of europe at the time it was urbanized and I dont see why we wont see a continued strong trend towards urbanization in the case of a stable byzantine polity that has secured its borders and prevented Italian and foreign domination of the eastern med.
 
Last edited:
Brit naval power in 19th century may be strong but whats not to say Byzantines cant have the same level of naval power?
The Byzantine could have easily ended up going the wrong path (galleys vs galleons) just like Venice and Ottoman IOTL. Geographical conditions suited galleys better in the Meds during the 15th-17th centuries, but that path was a dead-end. OTOH, Atlantic nations were incentivized to develop larger ocean-going galleons earlier. The result is that they could have easily bottled up in Eastern Meds a.k.a east of Malta.
 
Out of curiosity if the Byzantines do manage to lose everything south of Syria and dismiss it as a lost cause would western Europe be any more feasible or would they just bunker down with Italy, the Balkans, and Syria? I'm thinking the later but I wanted to check just in case.

The Byzantine could have easily ended up going the wrong path (galleys vs galleons) just like Venice and Ottoman IOTL. Geographical conditions suited galleys better in the Meds during the 15th-17th centuries, but that path was a dead-end. OTOH, Atlantic nations were incentivized to develop larger ocean-going galleons earlier. The result is that they could have easily bottled up in Eastern Meds a.k.a east of Malta.
Would the Byzantine navy be any better if they held Morocco?
 
What challenges do we think that the empire based out of Constantinople would have in reclaiming and holding the Trajanic borders, given that we're giving them basically 1400 years?

The Mediterranean littoral is pretty straightforward. The Danube is navigable, with some work, all the way to Bavaria, where a Rhine canal can be built. Constantinople would also have easy access to the Dniester and Dnieper rivers. I don't think that they would bother trying to control Ukraine directly, but Dacia/Romania is a very easy 'get', especially since controlling the Carpathians gives them a pretty nice defensive zone.

I think, combining both areas of direct rule and satellite states, I say that, as with any version of the Roman Empire that can survive long enough to industrialize, the natural borders are, in Europe, somewhere along the Dnieper and Vistula, in Asia, the Carpathians and Zagros, and in Africa, the Sahara.
 
Anything can change over time. We could see a byzantine empire expand into the steppes, we could see it reunite with Italy, or reconquer the east, or whatever you want. I don't believe there are special borders which are "natural". There are a variety of stable borders we could see from the byzantine empire, and with a 6th century pod the possibilities are endless.
 
Anything can change over time. We could see a byzantine empire expand into the steppes, we could see it reunite with Italy, or reconquer the east, or whatever you want. I don't believe there are special borders which are "natural". There are a variety of stable borders we could see from the byzantine empire, and with a 6th century pod the possibilities are endless
I would find it likely that byzantine settlers would go north from crimea they ( depending on the pod ) would be against the russian pushing south from ukraine the looser would be the nomads
And then a war between russia and the byzantine empire from control of parts of ukraine or crimea
 
Top