What is Before 1900's "Sealion"?

B-29_Bomber

Banned
they were always surrounded by nations that wanted to take territory or conquer them outright,

Not really. Here are periods where, 1) Other realms desired to conquer the Empire, and 2) had the ability to up to 1204:

1) 7th-8th centuries: Persians and Arabs (and perhaps the Bulgarians as well). For the Persians, before this period wars with the Romans were more or less limited to the border regions. For the Muslim Arabs, after this period the Arab Caliphate began a gradual decline and lost the ability to be an existential threat to the Empire. And of course the Bulgarians would Christianize during the 9th century.

2) 1071-1099 (1st Crusade)- The Turks and the Normans (and sure, the Pechenegs). This instance is easily avoided by butterflying away the Seljuk Turks reaching the Empire. If you do this you lower the threat the Normans are, by eliminating a major eastern threat. The Pechenegs never really were a major threat to the existence to the Empire. They only remained a problem due to military incompetence.

3) 1185-1204- The Latins. Nothing need to be said here that hasn't been said elsewhere and better, except FUCK THE ANGELOI SCUM!

As for governmental instability contributing to loss of territory? There are only 3 periods up to 1204 where governmental instability contributed to major loss of territory:

1) Early 7th Century and the overthrow of Maurice. Loss of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, and Armenia.
2) 1042-81- Post-Basil II malaise. Loss of Southern Italy and Anatolia.
3) 1185-1204- The Angeloi Period. Loss of Serbia, Bulgaria, Constantinople, and Greece (assuming Nicaea represents the Empire proper in exile).

In between those periods were vast periods of time where the Government was either relatively stable or any instability did not result in major civil strife and loss of territory.
 
Not really. Here are periods where, 1) Other realms desired to conquer the Empire, and 2) had the ability to up to 1204:

1) 7th-8th centuries: Persians and Arabs (and perhaps the Bulgarians as well). For the Persians, before this period wars with the Romans were more or less limited to the border regions. For the Muslim Arabs, after this period the Arab Caliphate began a gradual decline and lost the ability to be an existential threat to the Empire. And of course the Bulgarians would Christianize during the 9th century.

2) 1071-1099 (1st Crusade)- The Turks and the Normans (and sure, the Pechenegs). This instance is easily avoided by butterflying away the Seljuk Turks reaching the Empire. If you do this you lower the threat the Normans are, by eliminating a major eastern threat. The Pechenegs never really were a major threat to the existence to the Empire. They only remained a problem due to military incompetence.

3) 1185-1204- The Latins. Nothing need to be said here that hasn't been said elsewhere and better, except FUCK THE ANGELOI SCUM!

As for governmental instability contributing to loss of territory? There are only 3 periods up to 1204 where governmental instability contributed to major loss of territory:

1) Early 7th Century and the overthrow of Maurice. Loss of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, and Armenia.
2) 1042-81- Post-Basil II malaise. Loss of Southern Italy and Anatolia.
3) 1185-1204- The Angeloi Period. Loss of Serbia, Bulgaria, Constantinople, and Greece (assuming Nicaea represents the Empire proper in exile).

In between those periods were vast periods of time where the Government was either relatively stable or any instability did not result in major civil strife and loss of territory.

Well, I did say wanted to, not that they always could :winkytongue::winkytongue: but I do see your point. The Byzantines had a horrible series of bad coincidences; it wasn't some inevitable decline. That's fair enough. It only makes over centuries of history that the stability wasn't always weak. It's just that recurring issues did cause them to lose major territories multiple times, and AH Byzantium writers often downplay those issues to create a long-lasting and successful dynasty that reconquers pre-Islamic borders after 1204. It stretches plausibility to me to say the least
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
It stretches plausibility to me to say the least

Frankly it shouldn't. If you get rid of the Seljuk Turks that basically gets rid of any real OTL threat to the Empire's Eastern Frontier. From there you're just one Warrior Emperor who's looking for a major prestige conquest away from a major reconquest and that's likely either aimed at Italy or the Levant into Egypt and frankly, depending on what happens, the Levant is likely to look squishier than Italy (which were likely the target of a number of minor campaigns prior to this). Now would the conquest be easy? Nope. But I think it's entirely possible.

And as for Post-1204 PoDs? We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. An Empire that does some reforms and reconquers Anatolia, is in my humble opinion, perfectly capable of conquering into Egypt over the course of 8 centuries. They'd be forced into learning how to integrate a Muslim population in Anatolia as a trial run for the Levant and Egypt.
 
Frankly it shouldn't. If you get rid of the Seljuk Turks that basically gets rid of any real OTL threat to the Empire's Eastern Frontier. From there you're just one Warrior Emperor who's looking for a major prestige conquest away from a major reconquest and that's likely either aimed at Italy or the Levant into Egypt and frankly, depending on what happens, the Levant is likely to look squishier than Italy (which were likely the target of a number of minor campaigns prior to this). Now would the conquest be easy? Nope. But I think it's entirely possible.

And as for Post-1204 PoDs? We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. An Empire that does some reforms and reconquers Anatolia, is in my humble opinion, perfectly capable of conquering into Egypt over the course of 8 centuries. They'd be forced into learning how to integrate a Muslim population in Anatolia as a trial run for the Levant and Egypt.
An Age of Miracles!
 
Frankly it shouldn't. If you get rid of the Seljuk Turks that basically gets rid of any real OTL threat to the Empire's Eastern Frontier. From there you're just one Warrior Emperor who's looking for a major prestige conquest away from a major reconquest and that's likely either aimed at Italy or the Levant into Egypt and frankly, depending on what happens, the Levant is likely to look squishier than Italy (which were likely the target of a number of minor campaigns prior to this). Now would the conquest be easy? Nope. But I think it's entirely possible.

Looking back my tone was too harsh. I am not a historian, I can't really say if a Byzantium revival is impossible after X date. I do think no Seljuks would allow Byzantium to take Palestine and try Egypt if no other Persian/Muslim power was strong enough to stop them, you're right.

And as for Post-1204 PoDs? We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. An Empire that does some reforms and reconquers Anatolia, is in my humble opinion, perfectly capable of conquering into Egypt over the course of 8 centuries. They'd be forced into learning how to integrate a Muslim population in Anatolia as a trial run for the Levant and Egypt.

I guess we can disagree haha. I'll put my opinion like this: in order for a post-1204 Byzantine Empire to recover to the point of retaking Egypt they would need to be consistently lucky over the course of centuries the way they were unlucky over centuries OTL. Is it possible? Yes, I guess so. Is it unlikely? Yes, but a TL author can write a nation however they want it. I was just whining a bit.

An Age of Miracles!

The beginning of that has some extremely fortuitous events for the Byzantines, but I guess I can let it slide due to the detail, length, and epic writing...
 
Does the coming of the Anglo-Saxons to post-Roman Britain count as anything like an OTL Sealion?, although it took a long time to complete.

A Sealion would be a military operation that would be virtually impossible because of the particular conditions that stood in the way of its potential success.

The OTL Operation Sealion was never carried out because even the leadership of the nazis realised their plan to invade the British Isles by sea and air had just far too many logistics issues to work properly. The Luftwaffe was already defeated in the aerial Battle of Britain, and with the UK being very well-prepared to fight off an invasion by the early 1940s, even with the limited resources they had at the time, there was just no possibility of Operation Sealion ever working. And even if the Germans just narrowly made it to the British coast, they would be unable to conquer and hold anything for more than a few minutes or hours. The subsequent defeat and retreat back home would be a massive blow to the credibility of the nazi leadership, as well as of the wartime, militarist economy of Germany at the time. Long story short, Operation Sealion could not have worked, even if conditions were absurdly favourable.

The Normans invading Anglo-Saxon era England at a time when it had lots of issues fighting off both the Scandinavian armies attacking its northern regions, and the Norman forces preparing to cross the channel, is not a Sealion. Anglo-Saxon England after 1000 AD wasn't well-prepared militarily to fight off both the Scandinavians and subsequently the Normans. Given that there were no machine guns and precise coastal artillery in the early Middle Ages, and that Anglo-Saxon England was rather old-fashioned militarily and economically compared to the European mainland, England under its last pre-Norman king was ill-prepared to not get invaded. The UK of the 1940s was the exact opposite in terms of overall, manageable readiness, and fought in an era when military strategies and tactics were completely different.
 
Top