Surviving Byzantines Question

[Avitus]

Not so much a question about how the empire could survive, but a question about if it had. Since I don't want to suffer from the question of how it survives, I'll briefly detail a scenario that fulfills my requirements.

We have a successful Alexios II (say Manuel I lives an extra decade and nothing really bad happens in that time), thus avoiding both the Fourth Crusade and the loss of Bulgaria. Now, despite the weakening of the Seljuks, the empire doesn't reconquer all of central Anatolia, the population is more thuroughly Muslim and Turkish, and between the Italians and the Mongols and the unrest in Serbia and Bulgaria the empire just never manages to retake these areas, and ultimately becomes content with using them as a buffer state against the powerful Persia based dynasties that tended to crop up intermitently in the medieval and early modern near east. Without the sack of Constantinople, relations with the west improve, either the schism is healed, or its importance in the public mind wains over time. Byzantine borders remain fairly constant, perhaps a little bit of loss along the southern coast of Anatolia and the Adriatic, but overall it retains modern Greece, European Turkey, Bulgaria, most of Serbia, Albania, Macedonia, a toehold in the southern Crimea, the Western half of Anatolia, and eastern Anatolia north of the Pontic Mountains. These regions have all come to be a fairly unified nation, with regional languages having been cut down in number of speakers (though larger ones are still extant) and orthodox being around 85% of the overall population.

We'll assume the industrial revolution comes around the same time as OTL, and that the Americas have been discovered and colonized, basically that things are quite close to OTL overall with the exception of surviving Byzantium.

With this situation, how powerful can Byzantium be in the industrial era (say 1850 onwards for simplicity)? Thinking in terms of great powers from the OTL latter 19th century (Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ect.), who would they be most like? Would the Balkans' population be appreciably greater with added stability and no Ottomans? Lastly, what would the empire's goals be? Do they attempt to create a Middle Eastern/North African colonial empire, or look further afield to colonize, or just focus on Europe? Would they attempt to take control of an Alt-Seuz Canal and use that as a gateway to further colonization?

Basicall, in a nutshell, what would this Byzantium be like from 1850 to the present?

 

[Tongera]

I think the goal's of Byzantium in the situation you presented would be: Keep nationalities other than the Greek's in control, keep a hold of the Crimea and possible try and reconquer the entire Anatolian Plateau.

 

[voss749]

In the liberal era. I could easily imagine a republican Revival of the Eastern Roman Senate into an actual functioning body. You might even see the senate become a popularly elected body(as all people who own land could vote).

The senate would likely become responsible for electing the emperor once more.
While I would not necessarily expect a huge amount of human rights I could easily imagine imperial "edicts of toleration" for minority religions such as judaism and catholicism.

I suspect the mongols would make a deal with the byzantine empire and come down hard on the sultanate of rum.

A modern day Romanoi empire would like control the territories otl Greece and Turkey with perhaps albania and southern romania. I suspect there would be a strong tendency to want to stay out of most of the european wars especially the ones between Austria-Hungary and Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries.

A modern byzantine empire or republic could have easily population of 70 million people. If something like the EU existed in this timeline the Byzantine state would likely be the 2nd largest member. Yes a non islamic byzantine empire would have been admitted easily with reservations regarding human rights. Now imagine this state with a much better economy than in otl without the multiple revolutions that have racked greece and turkey, a stable constitutional monarchy and probably a stable economic policy.

I could imagine the big problems A modern byzantine empire would have would be
a) illegal immigration from the south and the east
b) Tensions between the orthodox church and the state as the state becomes more liberal.

Im sure others can think of ideas.

 

[Riain]

In at nutshell no.

I have a map here showing Industrial and Agricultural Europe in 1900, and a surviving Byzantium would have less then half of it's territory considered to be intensive agriculture and none considered Mining, Manufacturing and Commerce. In contrast all of Britain and Germany is either IA and/or MMC, France, Italy and European Russia are all IA with big chucks of MMC. Even 1900 Spain is better off than Byzantium.

I don't know if this a hard and fast rule, what are the coal/iron deposits like in Turkey and Greece?

 

[Deleted member 67076]

I dunno, but I find it hard to imagine the Romans with the Kommenoi era borders. I think Byzantium would attempt to take more of Anatolia over the centuries.

Anyways, I don't recall there being lots of coal in the Balkans/Western Anatolia, so Industrialization might be stunted for a while, unless they start importing alot of coal.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Avitus]

In at nutshell no.

I have a map here showing Industrial and Agricultural Europe in 1900, and a surviving Byzantium would have less then half of it's territory considered to be intensive agriculture and none considered Mining, Manufacturing and Commerce. In contrast all of Britain and Germany is either IA and/or MMC, France, Italy and European Russia are all IA with big chucks of MMC. Even 1900 Spain is better off than Byzantium.

I don't know if this a hard and fast rule, what are the coal/iron deposits like in Turkey and Greece?

It's not really a yes or no question.

Also, not sure about iron, but Bulgaria was very good on coal, so at least there they are in good shape. Also, Bulgaria and western Anatolia are very good agricultural land, and I believe that the combined territories I listed contain somewhere upwards of 50,000,000 people in OTL today, so they have a considerable population resource.

 

[Basileus444]

The population of the area in question, assuming no ATL disasters to compensate, will likely be higher since assuming equal Byzantine and Ottoman administrative capability, the former is automatically better since there is no destructive transitional period.

I know it is cliche, and sort of counter to the OP, but the Byzantines' main goal will be to conquer the rest of Anatolia if they are looking at things purely materialistically. Agriculturally central and east Anatolia stink, but they significantly shrink the border length and give them access to the metals of the Taurus and Anti-Taurus mountains.

Assuming for whatever reason that the ATL Byzantines don't do that, in keeping with the spirit of the OP, I expect the following:

Coal will be an issue, but not a serious one. There is some in Bulgaria, not nearly as plentiful or good as the stuff in England or Germany, but it's enough to fuel a small Industrial Revolution. Still I don't expect the Byzantines to be major coal producers. Major power production will have to wait until the age of oil (piped from Syria, Baku, or Ploesti), nuclear or hydroelectric power. The Byzantines are very, very well placed for the latter.

Metals can be gotten from Bulgaria and western Anatolia (there's a mountain chain between the Meander river valley and the central plateau whose name escapes me). Based on An Economic History of Byzantium by Angeliki Laiou, that range was a decent metals producer in the OTL Byzantine period.

Still, overall at best we'd see Austria-Hungary or maybe France level productions of steel and coal. Byzantines would probably pioneer oil and hydroelectricity to overcome their shortcomings in that regard.

Make nice with Russia. They have lots of lovely resources, and shipping is easy. A Baku to Trebizond pipeline makes a lot of sense. Antioch/Alexandretta might make a big refinery/shipping town for oil if Syrian and northern Iraqi fields get piped there.

OTL Slavic nationalism will need to be squished. Assuming the same political setup as OTL, Austria-Hungary and the Byzantines will agree on the need to keep Serbia down. Could be interesting if Austria-Hungary and Russia come to blows, especially if Russia is championing pan-Slavism, something highly unwelcome considering Bulgaria.

Most likely I expect such a power to be on an Austria-Hungary level, but having the advantage of being more homogeneous and probably efficient as well. Not enough to take on the UK or Germany by itself, but uncontestably a great power whose opinions must be respected even by the big boys.

Colonial wise it is hampered by geography. Control of Suez for shipping purposes could be important. Until Libyan oil is discovered, that area is worthless. Depends whether the Byzantines are practical or act the same as the other major powers in the late 1800s. I vote for more practical, since the Byzantines were usually very realistic in their views on their power projection capabilities and reasonable rationales for expansion. A protectorate of Ethiopia is the farthest I see the Byzantines in this scenario going.

Unless the Byzantines grab Egypt way earlier than the OP implies, expansion eastward towards useful territory like Indonesia would run into entrenched European powers, so that's a no go. Grabbing worthless African land is possible, but pointless.

Expanding into the Middle East, unless it's just be owning controlling shares of oil and shipping companies, doesn't make sense to me unless central/east Anatolia is reincorporated back into the Empire.

 

[Avitus]

Expanding into the Middle East, unless it's just be owning controlling shares of oil and shipping companies, doesn't make sense to me unless central/east Anatolia is reincorporated back into the Empire.

Just to be clear, retaking the rest of Anatolia from 1850 onwards is fine, I just want it assumed that they don't have it under their direct control as of 1850.

 

[Basileus444]

Just to be clear, retaking the rest of Anatolia from 1850 onwards is fine, I just want it assumed that they don't have it under their direct control as of 1850.

Ok, that makes sense. First priority then will be to regain Anatolia, for the reasons I mentioned. That does raise the question of why they waited until 1851 to do it. If it is because it made a good buffer state against a powerful Persia, then Persia must be in decline. In which case a Byzantium expanding east Anatolia-Syria-Iraq-Persia makes a lot of sense, rather than a North African route.

 

[Avitus]

Ok, that makes sense. First priority then will be to regain Anatolia, for the reasons I mentioned. That does raise the question of why they waited until 1851 to do it. If it is because it made a good buffer state against a powerful Persia, then Persia must be in decline. In which case a Byzantium expanding east Anatolia-Syria-Iraq-Persia makes a lot of sense, rather than a North African route.

I was assuming something like that, not unlike how Persia and the middle east began to fall behind the west and the Ottomans around that time IOTL. Controlling oil could definitely be incentive for pushing into Iraq at least, though if Egypt is similarly weak I could see wanting control of the Seuz alone for toll and trade purposes.

 

[Komnenos002]

I can't for the life of me recall or find it, but similar questions were raised in Basileus444's own timeline. I believe someone posted interesting information on the resources in both Anatolia and Greece.

 

[ManintheField]

A Byzantium that doesn't control the central Anatolian plateau doesn't control the western Anatolian lowlands. The border is too long and too porous. Either it retakes the plateau or it eventually loses Anatolia. Even while it is kept, its poorer than it would be otherwise as the result of constant, difficult to defend against raiding. The state has to pour resources into defending the huge border (whether resident tribes are nominally loyal to the Emperor or not) to the point where eventually some Emperor is going to wise up and notice how much cheaper it would be to install Imperial rule.

 

[Avitus]

A Byzantium that doesn't control the central Anatolian plateau doesn't control the western Anatolian lowlands. The border is too long and too porous. Either it retakes the plateau or it eventually loses Anatolia. Even while it is kept, its poorer than it would be otherwise as the result of constant, difficult to defend against raiding. The state has to pour resources into defending the huge border (whether resident tribes are nominally loyal to the Emperor or not) to the point where eventually some Emperor is going to wise up and notice how much cheaper it would be to install Imperial rule.

Just because a long border exists doesn't mean that there is constant raiding, and just because something is cheaper to defend doesn't mean it will be taken quickly (Scotland's long independance from England for instance). The Empire held on to partial control of Anatolia for about three hundred years following the loss of the plateau, and only lost control following a long series of catastrophic defeats in Europe and the rise of a state controlling more of Anatolia than they did. If the buffer state has been working (and the scenario specifies that it has) then it makes sense to leave well enough alone on account of the cost of subjugating the region.

 

[ManintheField]

Just because a long border exists doesn't mean that there is constant raiding

When that long border is with some of the best horse pasture this side of the Black Sea it kind of does.

Look, the entire time the Byzantines held the Anatolian lowlands after Manzikert there was constant raiding activity (by both sides, mind you). This isn't me conjecturing something, this is what actually happened when the conditions we're talking of came about historically. It was a serious problem that only got worse as time went by.

and just because something is cheaper to defend doesn't mean it will be taken quickly (Scotland's long independance from England for instance).

That wasn't for lack of trying.

EDIT: In fact, Scotland is a great example to bring up to demonstrate the previous point. It was pretty much SOP in pre-modern times when faced with a frontier between two competing states to set up tribes or social groupings of war-like raiding peoples on both sides of the border to engage in raiding activity against each other. This is what was done in Scotland and England and it was what was done between the Byzantines and the Rum.

The Empire held on to partial control of Anatolia for about three hundred years following the loss of the plateau, and only lost control following a long series of catastrophic defeats in Europe and the rise of a state controlling more of Anatolia than they did. If the buffer state has been working (and the scenario specifies that it has) then it makes sense to leave well enough alone on account of the cost of subjugating the region.

Look at Byzantium's history with buffer states: Armenia was essentially a potato that got passed between the Persians and the Romans throughout the entire era of super-power conflicts that the two engaged in. Whose ever army was the last one to roll through the country was who the Armenian kingdom was loyal to.

A buffer state on the Anatolian plateau isn't just going to require constant maintenance and looking after to make sure it doesn't start acting contrary to Byzantine interests, but its going to be a serious potential fifth column during Byzantine wars against eastern enemies. Once you've skipped past the Tarsus there are no real natural barriers between you and Nicaea. You just have to convince, with carrot or stick, the people running the 'buffer state' that they ought to be on your side and viola, you have a highway to the Marmara.

EDIT2: Also, it's interesting to note that the early Ottomans didn't kick the Byzantines out of Anatolia when the Ottomans were the bigger state.

 

[Avitus]

When that long border is with some of the best horse pasture this side of the Black Sea it kind of does.

Look, the entire time the Byzantines held the Anatolian lowlands after Manzikert there was constant raiding activity (by both sides, mind you). This isn't me conjecturing something, this is what actually happened when the conditions we're talking of came about historically. It was a serious problem that only got worse as time went by.

Totally different situation. The Seljuks were powerful rivals with an interest in raiding, not a weak buffer state trying not tto get killed by their neighbor. Different conditions=different result.

That wasn't for lack of trying.

EDIT: In fact, Scotland is a great example to bring up to demonstrate the previous point. It was pretty much SOP in pre-modern times when faced with a frontier between two competing states to set up tribes or social groupings of war-like raiding peoples on both sides of the border to engage in raiding activity against each other. This is what was done in Scotland and England and it was what was done between the Byzantines and the Rum.

Never said they couldn't try and fail in the meantime, although England did have a good 200 years without trying after the first failure. Also, Byzantium and this buffer won't be competing, and Scotland wasn't a buffer, so I see no reason why they would set up to raid one another.

Look at Byzantium's history with buffer states: Armenia was essentially a potato that got passed between the Persians and the Romans throughout the entire era of super-power conflicts that the two engaged in. Whose ever army was the last one to roll through the country was who the Armenian kingdom was loyal to.

A buffer state on the Anatolian plateau isn't just going to require constant maintenance and looking after to make sure it doesn't start acting contrary to Byzantine interests, but its going to be a serious potential fifth column during Byzantine wars against eastern enemies. Once you've skipped past the Tarsus there are no real natural barriers between you and Nicaea. You just have to convince, with carrot or stick, the people running the 'buffer state' that they ought to be on your side and viola, you have a highway to the Marmara.

Armenia was more useful than that as a buffer, and the Taurus isn't the last line of defense for Anatolia. The entire post Manzikert history of the Byzantine Empire is one of holding large portions of Anatolia and not the Taurus, and when the empire was alright at home it was able to control its Anatolian lands just fine without controling the whole eastern edge.

EDIT2: Also, it's interesting to note that the early Ottomans didn't kick the Byzantines out of Anatolia when the Ottomans were the bigger state.

My mistake. Still, considering all else that was going on at that time, it's hardly surprising that the empire lost control. When the empire was strong they didn't lose territory, and having total control of Anatolia, while helpful, was not vital, as can be seen by the century that they held the greater portion of Anatolia, but not the Plateau.

 

[Paladin]

I think you guys are assuming too much when you throw Russia and Austria-Hungary into the mix. A surviving Byzantine empire would drastically change the history of both states. A Byzantine empire means no Ottomans for the Austrians and Hungarians to fight, which was key to their nation-building. It also means no Third Rome, and probably no Tsardom. It wouldn't surprise me instead to see Austria as the core of a surviving HRE, Hungary as an independent kingdom (and maybe an empire in its own right), and no unified Russia.

 

[RadishPumpkinsForever]

I like this. But Byzantium surviving would have serious ripples in Eastern Europe. Without the Ottoman pressure from the South the Austrians would likely have a better time moving in o Germany. The politics of Italy would be changed drastically and so many ripples!

But in the spirit of the thread I would say a few things. I have always thought if BZ survived that they would eventually become a neutral trading empire along the lines of Sweden after the faile dinvasion of Russia. Stuck between East and West, BZ would need to be more neutral than anything else.

As for colonialism, they probably would have looked at the Mid-East and East Africa. It probably would have been BZ Libya and BZ Ehtiopia, Somalia etc.

 

[Tizoc]

I like this. But Byzantium surviving would have serious ripples in Eastern Europe. Without the Ottoman pressure from the South the Austrians would likely have a better time moving in o Germany. The politics of Italy would be changed drastically and so many ripples!

Another ripple: without Ottoman backing, Crimean Tatars are going to fold earlier, probably in first half of XVII C., with Crimea itself ending in Russia and mouth of the Dniepr in Commonwealth (assuming no butterflying of Polish-Lithuanian union). Thus there'll be open road for exporting Ukrainian grain ~200 yrs earlier than OTL - and through ERE held Straits.

As for colonialism, they probably would have looked at the Mid-East and East Africa. It probably would have been BZ Libya and BZ Ehtiopia, Somalia etc.

If ERE is going after Etiopia & Somalia, it needs to get control of Egypt first. And if they do so, there'll be a HUGE temptation to go after Palestine. Personally I don't see ERE as a colonial power - there'll be too many distractions close to the borders.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

I wonder if that would help by ripples any big dynasty in Iran... there was at least one Ottoman-Persia war, I believe.

And of course, other eastern realms, depending on the scenario...

 

[Riain]

There's a difference between a colonial and imperial power. Byzantium acquiring more territory makes it an imperial power without making it a colonial power.

How much hydro-electricity does modern Greece and Turkey have? Italy got around not having much coal to an extent by investing in hydro power.