Latest Byzantine PoD that includes Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Italy

What's the latest realistic PoD for a surviving Byzantine Empire that contains the Pentarchy (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Rome (south and central Italy)? Would the 12th century (before the sack) be doable? Or perhaps all the way back to Manzikert? I'm assuming that the Byzantines manage to integrate a substantial number of Muslims (as well as catholics) into the empire in the same way that the Ottomans managed with Christians.
 
Last edited:
I would say pre-Manzikert is doable. The latest POD is Theodore II Laskaris, but that would take TREMENDOUS luck, borderline ASB.
 
Last edited:
John Tzimiskes. He did some nice work in the Levant. Basil II would be an option but he spend a lot of time and resources on bringing down Bulgaria. But considering he died almost 10 years after finishing off Bulgaria at the age of 67 I doubt he could live long and healthy enough to conquer Egypt and the Levant as well. Italy is however easily subduable. Too much smaller states as well as a weak Emirate of Sicily.
 
IMHO the First Crusade - if the Emperor had been able to manage the crusaders, and get them to stick to what he assumed were the agreements
 
Maniakes not alienating his Norman allies, then running afoul the Imperial power much like OTL and marching on Constantinople, weakening other noble families on his likely vengeance, is my favorite. At least he was a good general, though a harsh administrator.
 
Depending on your opinion of control, I'd guess the VIIth century is probably the latest period where it can be arguably done without resorting to artifices such as very technical dominance. With the quick retraction of ERE after the Arab Conquest, there was no real possibility to hold on both Rome and Alexandria, for instance, as the seeds of differenciation that were managed IOTL and could have been much longer allohistorically, had all the room to blossom and eventually drift away too much by the time Constantinople was strong enough to reassert its authority beyond Balkans and Anatolia.
 

Marc

Donor
Alexandria means Lower Egypt (Upper, unless you're into multiple supposing that. is a lost dream). 946 CE is my choice of last possible year for Lower Egypt, after that, too much history after 3 centuries for a reconquesta.
Antioch is doable until about the 1st Crusade, then it's going to stay in Hauteville hands, until finally lost - and that is because of the changing demographics, spiced with the Black Death.
Jerusalem, 11th century, not really later, the Crusaders, I think, got lucky in the right time, right army.
Rome is a wild card, I could see various scenarios where Rome and points south recover and or stay in Byzantine hands, but that would depend largely on good breaks on the eastern frontiers.
All of them? Nope, the tides are going out on that kind of massive Mediterranean empire, and won't flow back in again until the Ottoman era.

And as I have noted several times on Byzantine threads, regardless of how well they do, they are going to face the Mongol Juggernaut - and when it comes that gang, the bigger their opponents are, the harder they fall...
 
And as I have noted several times on Byzantine threads, regardless of how well they do, they are going to face the Mongol Juggernaut - and when it comes that gang, the bigger their opponents are, the harder they fall...

The unification of the Mongols and their successful overrunning of the entire Mideast is inevitable? What if, say, the Khwarezmids hadn’t killed the Mongol envoys? Even a small change like that could have prevented the invasions happening exactly as we know them.

As for general nomad army invasions, they were hardly something Byzantium was unused to dealing with...
 

Marc

Donor
The unification of the Mongols and their successful overrunning of the entire Mideast is inevitable? What if, say, the Khwarezmids hadn’t killed the Mongol envoys? Even a small change like that could have prevented the invasions happening exactly as we know them.

As for general nomad army invasions, they were hardly something Byzantium was unused to dealing with...

Well, as I said, we all can do a whole lot of supposing that to get the outcomes we want, but I thought the original query was about is it at all plausible to have the Byzantine regain the Pentarchy. (And the coda is a logical one unless we handwave).
The quick and easy answer to the thread was provided by Turtledove in his "Agent of Byzantium" (I assume everyone who cares about alternate Byzantium has read that collection of short stories).


As for the Byzantines and nomad army invasions, while they were used to dealing with Cumans, Perchangs, Oghuz Turks, et al, the history is distinctly mixed as to how well. And the Mongols really were the consummate killing machines of their day, at a level the Byzantines were not even when they were at the level of Basil II.
 
I'd say up to Manzikert or 1040, if the Byzantine invasion of Sicily succeeds and you have no Normans, you can have the Byzantines reliably control Southern Italy, from there you could have no Manzikert and have solid conquest of Northern Syria and from there you have centuries of time that allows a conquest of Egypt and Palestine.
 
Well, as I said, we all can do a whole lot of supposing that to get the outcomes we want, but I thought the original query was about is it at all plausible to have the Byzantine regain the Pentarchy. (And the coda is a logical one unless we handwave).
The quick and easy answer to the thread was provided by Turtledove in his "Agent of Byzantium" (I assume everyone who cares about alternate Byzantium has read that collection of short stories).


As for the Byzantines and nomad army invasions, while they were used to dealing with Cumans, Perchangs, Oghuz Turks, et al, the history is distinctly mixed as to how well. And the Mongols really were the consummate killing machines of their day, at a level the Byzantines were not even when they were at the level of Basil II.
The mongols are not invincible nor are the mongols even sure to invade byzantine empire.

Mongols dominating required one to two things in the battlefield, the opponent must have an undisciplined army like Hungary and Russia, and have far worse battlefield commanders than the Mongols.

Vs Disciplined armies like the Persians/Chinese/Byzantines, The mongols battlefield superiority will only last until they have the commander advantage. An army led by Basil 2 level general/ or even John Komnenoi leading a Byzantine komenenoi army would slaughter a mongol army led by Kitbuqa.

invading requires The Byzantines not paying tribute or the Byzantines insulting the Mongols. Both of which are not assured in ATL. Why would the Byzantines slaughter diplomats like the Khwarzem? Why would Byzantines not pay tribute?
 
In my opinion the recovery of these five Cities is still possible with a POD before the deposition of the Komnenoi. They already controlled Constantinople and loosely also Antioch. It s not impossible to see Jerusalem slowly integrated by the empire while Alexandria would represent the “final boss”. Rome itself shouldn’t be really difficult but the road to the city is overcrowded by Normans. After the Angeloi and 1204 the empire doesn’t have serious chances to recover all these cities ( maybe Antioch but I’m not too sure).
 

elkarlo

Banned
Justinian having a more definitive and easier victory in the Gothic war and his ego being feed by this victory.
Or if he slowed to down and conquered and slowly moved on after integrating his conquests. Like hit north Africa and Sicily. Wait a few years the. Take Sardinia, hit Corsica a few years later. Take the illyrian coast and then hit Italy well after that. Too much too fast left no room for error nor the ability to absorb natural disasters
 
Top