That must be the 100000th thread about a plausible Byzantine wank, but I NEED to ask this...

Depends, if Anything they might just trade with Muslims as trade with Ummayds and Abbasadis in OTL, too early too navigate around the globe, European ships don't have the range yet
I imagine ships would be accelerated due to Christianised Vikings (sooner ITTL because of expansionist spirit) helping share better boats and maybe even leaking Newfoundland to the rest of the west.
 
Depends, if Anything they might just trade with Muslims as trade with Ummayds and Abbasadis in OTL, too early too navigate around the globe, European ships don't have the range yet
Eventually, Western Europeans would try to circumvent the Med, and once they succeed, Med trade would tank.
 
I imagine ships would be accelerated due to Christianised Vikings (sooner ITTL because of expansionist spirit) helping share better boats and maybe even leaking Newfoundland to the rest of the west.
Butterflies.

Eventually, Western Europeans would try to circumvent the Med, and once they succeed, Med trade would tank.
Something might take centuries, plus muslim and others did travel alongside africa too, would be interesting but again, med is the shortest route
 
The Vandal thing is not that easy.

When Justinian invaded the Vandal Kingdom, the Visigothic kingdom was still Arian and had better relationships with the Vandals than the also Arian Ostrogoths. IOTL this triggered at-the-end-of-the-day-useless Byzantine campaigns in southern Spain and Mauretania; so even if ITTL Justinian only attacks the Vandals (and not the Ostrogoths) it might backfire through the highly likely Visigothic involvement, which in its turn can also bring the Ostrogoths as well.
 
(Ignoring the fact that any other major persian power will try to take mesopotamia, and eventually they will take, until the romans conquer it back again)
About the logistics problem... Could the romans use the Tigris and the Euphrates to deal with the resources? They don't have proper roads or a great sea, but they have the Amazon River of Mesopotamia.

And I liked your argument about Southern Italy. In my point of view, any piece of land in Italy is asking for trouble. I have the same feel that eventually a northern great power could easily take it from the hands of the Byzantines, but at the same time I feel that once North Africa is secured as an important prosperous byzantine province again, the chances of a major threat are not that big and Magna Graecia stays under greek roman control.
They can... sort of... use the Euphrates and Tigris. You still have a long way to transport goods from any Mediterranean port, and then any army at the Zagros will require more overland transport at the other end too.

It's not impossible, I mean, Rome has temporarily held the area and the Ottomans did for a long time too. I think these examples, coupled with oh-so-many polities holding Iran-Mesopotamia show that Rome could only hold it against a weak Persia. If the area is under a vigorous and dynamic power, they can simply project force into the area more easily than Rome can.

Northeast Italy would connect Southern Italy with Dalmatia. In addition, the Venice lagoon, as we know, is extremely valuable. It would be a big naval base, it could very well replace Ravenna as the HQ of Exarchate of Italy. Those barbarians are not going to lay siege on Venice, they can't.
I suspect this is the strongest method for defence in the west of any Roman/Byzantine Empire. Holding the Adriatic with Venetia as an impervious HQ and logistics centre makes it much easier for the Romans to project force into the region. Couple that was the mountainous terrain, and it's a reasonably "natural" border for Rome.

It does require Rome never falling too far behind, however. It's reasonably easy to imagine Rome stumbling when the Mediterranean trade shifts to the Atlantic and disrupts its economy. If Rome is going through a period of turmoil and the rising powers in France (or Germany) sense weakness, there isn't much stopping them once they penetrate the mountain passes.
 
They can... sort of... use the Euphrates and Tigris. You still have a long way to transport goods from any Mediterranean port, and then any army at the Zagros will require more overland transport at the other end too.

It's not impossible, I mean, Rome has temporarily held the area and the Ottomans did for a long time too. I think these examples, coupled with oh-so-many polities holding Iran-Mesopotamia show that Rome could only hold it against a weak Persia. If the area is under a vigorous and dynamic power, they can simply project force into the area more easily than Rome can.



I suspect this is the strongest method for defence in the west of any Roman/Byzantine Empire. Holding the Adriatic with Venetia as an impervious HQ and logistics centre makes it much easier for the Romans to project force into the region. Couple that was the mountainous terrain, and it's a reasonably "natural" border for Rome.

It does require Rome never falling too far behind, however. It's reasonably easy to imagine Rome stumbling when the Mediterranean trade shifts to the Atlantic and disrupts its economy. If Rome is going through a period of turmoil and the rising powers in France (or Germany) sense weakness, there isn't much stopping them once they penetrate the mountain passes.
so there's no way that Assyria and Babylonia could be hold by the byzzies and keep these areas majority christian?
 
so there's no way that Assyria and Babylonia could be hold by the byzzies and keep these areas majority christian?
There a reason why they Become Muslim very quickly to become the centre...the Future Jundist of syria hated the tyranny of the greeks of Istanbul
 
I imagine ships would be accelerated due to Christianised Vikings (sooner ITTL because of expansionist spirit) helping share better boats and maybe even leaking Newfoundland to the rest of the west.
Umm so the Christian goes north after losing Costantinople(and maybe rome?)
 
Top