What would Byzantine be called if restored?
- Thread starter Hydraphantom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- byzantine empire greece
What would be the circa-1900 population of a Greece that had gained independence in the early 1800s and, rather than gained territory piecemeal over the next few decades, had somehow gained all of the wildest reaches of the Megali Idea in very short order - in the words of @Vasilas,
"some chimeraic Greek led successor state is put in its place (at least in the Aegean and Pontus regions) to secure balance of powers over the straits-led by Phanariotes and similar prominent elements from the millet-i-Rum." Surely a sufficiently large state, population-wise, might accord at least nominal respect from the great powers of Europe such that they'd be willing to refer to it as a Roman Empire - if not the Roman Empire.
"some chimeraic Greek led successor state is put in its place (at least in the Aegean and Pontus regions) to secure balance of powers over the straits-led by Phanariotes and similar prominent elements from the millet-i-Rum." Surely a sufficiently large state, population-wise, might accord at least nominal respect from the great powers of Europe such that they'd be willing to refer to it as a Roman Empire - if not the Roman Empire.
Why the "h"? Just call it Romania. But then you have the issue with the Vlach Romanians, and the fact it sure looks like you're trying to call yourself the Roman Empire.
I don't know why the Czechs demanded they be called Czech. So you could make "Czech = Check" puns, to increase visibility? They all used to be called Bohemians in English anyway.
That's difficult to quantify the potential population, given Turkish mismanagement/poor economic growth, large amounts of emigration from Greece which continued well into the 20th century, migration to cities in the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, crimes against humanity, population exchanges, etc.
But I doubt you could get more than 35-40 million by the present day, about half of which are Turks, with another significant chunk of Slavs, Albanians, Armenians, etc. This is an extreme variant of the Megali Idea. I'm using the population stats of all modern Greece, all of Cyprus, southwestern Bulgaria, Northern Epirus, all Macedonia, Turkish Thrace, the Turkish west coast, and all of the Black Sea coast (Pontus).For Izmir and Istanbul, I used the population stats from the mid-20th century, since most of their major growth is from Anatolians and other Turks moving there. Economy-wise, since we're assuming the best, maybe on the level of modern Spain? That's still pretty big, but compared to the big players in Europe, not quite significant.
Even if we assume that Greece pulls a Meiji/is utterly wanked after independence and can take all this land/is given all this land, it's still poor and underdeveloped, and full of people of different culture and more importantly, different religion. At best, it could probably get to Italy-tier in terms of economic development, with maybe half the population (if we're talking about early 20th century warfare). There will still be tons of emigration to the New World and elsewhere. Without a doubt, it's a regional power, but nothing more. If people have been laughing at Mussolini's Roman Empire since before WWII, then people would laugh at this pretension to be the Roman Empire, or even the Byzantine Empire. Although I guarantee this state would grab Cyrenaica, if not all of Libya, but that's not exactly a high-value colony.
Russia as the new Byzantine/Roman Empire makes more sense, and that brings to mind the whole deal with Russia. This Greek state controls the Straits, as well as calls itself Rome. But Russia already is Rome, the Third Rome. The Second Rome is dead, so how can this state be Rome? I'm sure they'd work something out, plus this hyper-Greece makes a great regional ally. But I wonder if this would divide Russian nationalists, between helping Orthodox Greece (Rome) and helping fellow Slavs.
Bohemians was confusing, because that referred to the inhabitants of Bohemia, which is only one part of Czechia.
On the Roman issue, I believe the 19th Century Greek referred to the place as Rhōmais, which would likely be Anglocised as Rhomania, although Romania was also used. I don't think it's claiming to be the Roman Empire but the land of the Romans, which is what they considered themselves to be. Does calling China, "China" mean they are claiming to be the Qin Dynasty? I don't believe they'd let the views of the Vlachs affter their views very much.
Romanians, of course. It is an immutable rule of the universe that in all possible timelines the Greeks must have a naming dispute with a neighbor.
*MACEDONIAN SLAV INTENSIFIES*
(to clarify it was a joke about the conflict between Greece/FYROM please don't kill me either side)
Because, first of all, that's what they call themselves, and second, because their land consists of Bohemia and Moravia.
This gets a bit niggly. If the Theory of Continuity holds primacy in Romania, Dacia could hold out - but there may well be calls for unification. After which the two groups of Romans could call themselves 'Dacians' and 'Hellenes' respectively.
I would caution that a late arising Roman Empire (whilst awesome), might have some pedigree issues, that require some ties to Russia, and Romania to resolve, unless a convincing Palaiologoi comes forward (likely from Italy).
I fear that such a state might end up being very similar to Yugoslavia - with the same needs to resolve cultural differences. Perhaps by Federation under the Emperor - with the Emperor leading the Federal Government that is supported by the State Governments of the Serbs, Dacians, Hellenes, Croats, Bosnians, Bulgars, and likely, Turks (some, probably near the Marmara).
Messy as all hell. I do like the idea of the emergence of a Roman Empire that unifies the Balkans in the wake of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires being dismantled after WW1. No matter how you swing it though, you've essentially replaced one Empire based in Austria, for another based in Constantinople. If it can stabilise, it could well determine the outcome of WW2. If heavily supported by the Entente, and then the Allies - it could well be the 'Southern Front' for Germany.
Although, it'd all be worth it for the Kataphract-Class Tank. (It may be that I've played too much HoI4 recently, but the idea of WW2 leading to an Italy in federated parts ruled from Constantinople by Romans is pretty sweet.)
Cesare Borgia and Mussolini be damned!
Overall, a modern Federated Rome sounds god damn amazing, even if its only in the Eastern/Central Mediterranean.
I always thought that "Bohemian" was used in English to refer to both Bohemia and Moravia.
True, and I suppose there's the whole Romania vs Rumania thing.
If "R(h)omania" was "taken" by a Greek "successor" to the Byzantine (Roman) Empire, then I can definitely see Dacia being the name for united Romania.
If you added all of Yugoslavia in addition to the Turkish areas, you'd get a country where Greeks are no more than a fraction of the population. Definitely a Yugoslavia-esque situation, and not even one where there's an ideology like pan-Slavism or communism underlying the state. Not to mention, Russia is the only country which might hope for this to happen, and why give Russia some massive borderline-proxy state which also controls the (formerly) Turkish Straits?
There were definitely Palaiologoi extent in the 19th century, but "convincing" is something else. You might as well give it to the Cantacuzino family of the Danubian Principalities, even if their line is questionable. Seems like quite a few Phanariotes claimed Byzantine links, so it isn't like you'd have a shortage of potential local claimants if you don't want to install a German prince as in OTL.
It depends on who appears first and how - but if Dacia comes after Rhomania (I'm sticking with that to distinguish the two) then I reckon you're probably right. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time the Balkans had two very similarly named states/regions.
It may not simply be a construction, but a successful campaign by the Greeks. It also depends on how it is done. The Greeks certainly don't have the manpower to dominate the region through men alone. It would almost certainly rely on whether or not there was a unifying enough idea behind it, combined with federalisation. Perhaps the idea of a Great Christian Empire - or a 'Roman Empire of the Greeks, Slavs and Dacians' preventing outsiders from overrunning the Balkans again.
If the Pharanariotes got more involved in the revolution, certainly. They certainly had money, which might have them demand one of their number is made Emperor. The Cantacuzino could be interesting, if they have the ties to hold things together.
Would there even be anyone alive at the time (or today for that matter) that have even a psuedo convincing ancestry or dynastic claim to the Palaiologi or Komneni? I've read that there were some Ottoman Greeks that went under the name "Palaiologos" or "Megas Komnenos" during the 17th century, but there doesn't appear to be any more information. Did the line die out or have they intermingled with the population to the point where they're impossibile to identify?
I imagine the Phanariotes would just elect their own Emperor in this scenario.
Orthodox Christian, of course. Which is where you run into the Croats and Bosnians and other non-Orthodox peoples.
I mean, the Cantacuzino were already pretty noteworthy, and have a more direct Byzantine lineage than other prominent Phanariotes.
I believe there are people who can somewhat convincingly claim Palaiologos ancestry, either through the Montferrat branch or otherwise. One Phanariot family was called Komnenos and claimed descent from the Trebizond emperors, but that seems pretty doubtful.
The difference between them and the Cantacuzino is that the Cantacuzino actually served as princes of Moldavia at one point.
I mean, yeah, the Phanariotes could just elect a king or emperor if they felt like it, but it seems culturally difficult. Greece invited German rulers, after all. Romania didn't keep their native ruler, but brought in a German ruler. And in Poland-Lithuania, it was usually preferred a foreign prince be elected rather than a native nobleman.[/QUOTE]
That's interesting, I'm suprised there haven't been any pretenders that have tried to make a dynastic claim. I guess it must be either due to lack of knowledge/interest or fear of conflict with the House of Glücksburg. I mean if there's still a pretender for the Kingdom of Gwynedd, what's stopping a pretender for the Empire of the Romans?
Fair enough, I mean there are examples of other countries that did elect a native king, but I guess that makes sense.
Speak of non-Orthodox, should there be an ethnic/religious cleansing of Muslims? At least the conflict between catholic and orthodox are not that intense, Muslims and Christians on the other hand....
Aye, which is why I think I'd want to stay away from specifically Orthodox. Perhaps an agreement for autocelephelous churches for each federal area - so you can have Latin Rite/Catholic-style churches in Croatia. Bosnia is a dodgey one there, but if it is more a 'state church' then a Muslim church could be acceptable in Bosnia, but a bit odd for a 'Christian Empire' approach. Although I could see a cleansing as @Hydraphantom alludes to. But I can't see that going down well (and may be used as a cause for war by someone).
Lets just work with them then.
"What do you mean? Those soldiers aren't Roman soldiers, they're Roman Patriots who have chosen to fight under Strategos Komnenos in Pontus of their own volition. What are you talking about? Fake ledgers that hide approximately the costs of running that campaign? Nonsense. Fake News."
That ... could be an interesting tie in. A benefit for the 'Dacians' is that with further backing by Greece (who control all trade from the Black Sea), is that with Constantinople on side, they have some level of control over Russian supply lines. The Russians won't be threatening them for territory any time soon.
There would be a difference, this whole thread is built on the idea of Roman-ness as the leader for Greek Independence, or enough of a part to declare themselves the Roman Empire reborn. Having a Roman Emperor would be critical for getting a whole mess of things recognised. Such as rule over vast swathes of the Middle East.
Oh, that could be a dastardly thing. WW2 settlement, where the Brits and French hand over the Mandates to the Roman Empire (so that they deal with all the mess), with Israel being made a 'state' within the Roman Federal Empire. That post-war settlement would certainly change things for an alt-Soviet Union. Both the Suez Canal AND the Bosporus under the control of one country - that is also handling religious diversity, and Israel. The politics of that country would be VERY interesting. Especially as it would be the main non-nation state polity of its time.
EDIT : This has led me to an interesting name for this. The Federated Union of Roman Protectorates. FURP. Or in Greek - Omospondiakí Énosi romaïkón protektoráton (OERP).
(Cue Newsreel noises) "The President of the United States met with the Emperor of OERP today, to begin negotiations for the USA to place missile platforms on the North Anatolian coast, and the Caucauses, in exchange for an end to the Monarchist Sanctions of 1955. The Purple Curtain may well have fallen, exposing the flank of the Red."
Last edited:
Lacking nationalism (very few Greeks there) or communism (or other political ideology), all they have is religion, and clearly Greece was an Orthodox country, supported by the very Orthodox Third Rome. Catholics seem very difficult to incorporate into this scheme. They are misguided Christians, quite a few in favour of Orthodox theocracy have stated that. And the religious difference is what created Serbs and Croats to begin with. And speaking of Croats, how is Austria so quite at this utter implosion of the Ottoman Empire.
Money talks, bullshit walks.
Depends how much influence the Cantacuzino/Kantakouzenos have in the Danubian principalities. Plenty of other Phanariot families were powerful there, and I suppose Greece and "Dacia" make good allies.
But since so much of Russian history is based on their desire for good seaports (in addition to good buffer states), I couldn't imagine Russia staying silent on this matter, Orthodox or not.
Phanariot merchants and bourgeois are not exactly the best examples of Roman-ness. Not even the contemporary Cantacuzino. The Kantakouzenoi record in Byzantine rulership isn't exactly illustrious either.
No way in hell is any state going to be allowed to control both Suez and the Bosporus. Not to mention this state is obviously going to be highly vulnerable to revolt from the Arabs or anyone else the European powers give it control over. Kinda reminds me of "vassal feeding" in Europa Universalis IV, but that has consequences in real life, and a second-rate European power (even with all the Balkans, you aren't getting anything stronger than contemporary Italy, and with far worse issues than Italy's "Southern Question") isn't going to be able to control all that land. I doubt all the local Christians, which range from heretics to "reliable" co-religionists, will make good allies for this. Israel? Probably pouring gasoline on the fire here.
Plus some other European country would rather grab the Near East, as Britain and France did OTL.
It would probably have to rely on a long-term scheme, perhaps the Phanariotes amassing more and more power in Europe, whilst allied together, waiting for the right war to strike, and then take power together. Don't ask me for details, I don't have them.
Yeah, dominance by the Russians would not be in Roman interests. They'd probably have to seek allies elsewhere in Europe. Perhaps France? (Oh wow, a Phanariot revolt during the Napoleonic Wars would be an interesting start, with the Greeks moving between Frence, then Coalition, then British support.)
True.
Aye, it'd have a whole bunch of mess to work out. I think the earlier it emerges the better - a Napoleonic Emergence might work out well - gives it plenty of time to handle the European issues (Greece, Serbia, Romania), before it takes advantage of the Ottomans.
I think if you had them turn up and survive the Napolonic Wars, and butterflies permitting (Dunno where WW1 would kick off), have it seize Turkey during WW1, and then protect/hold the line in S.Europe against Germany in WW2, whilst using its own troops to free up French and British troops in the Mandates, it doesn't seem infeasable to me that they'd hold them post-war, so that they don't have to deal with the administration of it.
You're probably right that control of Egypt and the canal is something that people would want to avoid. However, if the deal is "Bring the Romans on side in exchange for the Canal, or risk them joining the Reds and taking it AND letting the Reds out", I think it'd be one of those Cold War nasties.
(God, I just trampled an entire genetic branch of butterflies there).
Sneaky. Almost puts the Phanariotes on the same level as the alleged power of the Freemasons and Jews. I don't think the Phanariotes ever had the goal of "let's revive Byzantium, and one of us is Emperor", and if they did, they wouldn't really be successful.
That's one option for a starting Greek state. They can just shift to a different protector once Napoleonic France is smashed.
Seizing Turkey just seems ridiculous. The rest of Europe would get in on it, leaving the Greeks/Romanians with at most, Pontus and the western coast.
For Suez, there's more reliable people like the British to secure Egypt, or hell, the native Egyptians (it isn't like they'll inevitably get colonised). If we don't butterfly British rule over India, then Britain absolutely wants and needs to secure control over Suez. Unreliable Greeks must never be allowed to hold Suez.
Austria will be taking all of the Catholic land they can in the wake of an Ottoman collapse and may even try to take Orthodox territory as well.
A revived Byzantium really would only have Orthodoxy as their main pillar of unity and strength. Either the nation is an anachronistic leading light for diversity or else Bulgaria and Serbia keep very, very high autonomy (if they don't have friends in high places; what if they do, like a joint Bulgarian-Phanariote rebellion breaks the Ottomans and they set up a dual government afterwards?). If "Romania" takes Turkish land expect a lot of attempts at conversion for their "wayward Anatolian brothers."
Honestly the only way this would happen is with an earlier PoD. Somehow the Ottomans collapse in the 17th or 18th centuries and there are more Orthodox Christians in the area on which to found the state. The state quickly gains Russian support (and probably some extent of Russian control) and seeks help from Britain or France as well.