WI: Byzantine restoration after 1800?
- Thread starter Hydraphantom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 1800 byzantine empire
Until the point where MegaGreece is wanted as an ally in the Cold War or some equivalent, and then the West starts respecting their own naming conventions.
I do think there a window for a different approach to Geopolitics as a result of calling themselves Romans. The idea of being Roman immediately leads them to be compared to OTL Romania. I don't see it as infeasible that you could see the two negotiate if not an alliance, a full blown Federal State - how they choose to reconcile power and language is important but I haven't the foggiest as to whether they'd prioritise one language, or adopt a seperate language, or attempt to merge them.
That Federal State could well work very differently to OTLs Yugoslavia. Both Romania and Greece were under some sort of Ottoman authority, and may see value in a reimagined Millet system. It would also be a partnership, rather than (IMO) annexing most of the Slavic countries into Serbia.
The existence of Bulgaria in between is a bit unusual, but if Romania and Greece are a federation, then a geopolitical aim (outside of general expansion for the Greek component) is trying to introduce Bulgaria - it'd be more functional, reduce their common borders, etc.
This is all based on the joint agreement of being "Roman", and that it is important for Romans to stick together. After that Roman-ness is almost semi-national. Bulgarians, Greeks, Dacians are all "Roman", and should work together. Later that could include the Turks.
Whilst it is an edge case, the idea of a Romanian-Greek "Roman Federation" is in the wheelhouse, and creates a very different set of possibilities to a Greek National State.
That Federal State could well work very differently to OTLs Yugoslavia. Both Romania and Greece were under some sort of Ottoman authority, and may see value in a reimagined Millet system. It would also be a partnership, rather than (IMO) annexing most of the Slavic countries into Serbia.
The existence of Bulgaria in between is a bit unusual, but if Romania and Greece are a federation, then a geopolitical aim (outside of general expansion for the Greek component) is trying to introduce Bulgaria - it'd be more functional, reduce their common borders, etc.
This is all based on the joint agreement of being "Roman", and that it is important for Romans to stick together. After that Roman-ness is almost semi-national. Bulgarians, Greeks, Dacians are all "Roman", and should work together. Later that could include the Turks.
Whilst it is an edge case, the idea of a Romanian-Greek "Roman Federation" is in the wheelhouse, and creates a very different set of possibilities to a Greek National State.
The Cantacuzino lived in Wallachia/Moldovia and were princes there.
Emperor of the Romans, King of Dacia and Greece, Child of the Purple Blood, [Michael] Cantacuzino. Has a good ring to it tbh.
I don't see why a direct descendant from an imperial dynasty would be necessary. Byzantine succession was never hereditary in mindset and law, except the last century of the Macedonian dynasty. Similarly there's no reason for a restored Byzantium to restore the monarchy too, if no suitable emperor is found.
I think the only realistic chance for a byzantine restoration would be the despotate morea surviving as a vassal of the ottomans like the romanians thus the roman name would probably remain prevalent amongst the greeks and the byzantine nobility would survive and not destroyed.
When the ottomans start to decline they could with luck create the megali idea basically restoring with a palaiologo kantakuzeno or even a komneno as a new basileus
When the ottomans start to decline they could with luck create the megali idea basically restoring with a palaiologo kantakuzeno or even a komneno as a new basileus
Would such a state calling itself an “Empire” really be accepted by Europe? Such a small state consisting of little more than the Peloponnese can’t really be called an Empire - hell, it can barely be called a Kingdom.
If the ruler of Greece called himself an Emperor, he would be a laughingstock, unless he ruled Istanbul (not very plausible).
If the ruler of Greece called himself an Emperor, he would be a laughingstock, unless he ruled Istanbul (not very plausible).
Deleted member 97083
It could be a monarchy with a vacant throne and a regent, like Hungary under Horthy.
trajen777
Banned
Ok as stated above i don't see that you would need a Byz remaining royal. The western countries were 100% more driven by Hellenistic views and saw the Byz empire as a corrupt Empire. However Russia viewed themselves as the 3rd empire (Rome - Constantinople - Moscow) so you need them to defeat the Ottomans and not have the western powers keep the OE together. SO i think the best bet is at the Congress of Berlin & treaty of San Stefano. In the SS treaty you have a massive Bulgaria (which is reduced at the Congress of Berlin). So you need a better attack with the Russian army in the Russo - Turkish war of 1877. The biggest mistake of the Russians was not sending more troops at the beginging of the War, They invaded the Balkans with 185,000 vs the Ottomans force of 200,000. The Russians had 300,000 available near the Balkans. SO lets have this
1. Russians use 250 - 300 k troops
2. Instead of a siege of Plevna you have enough troops to overwhelm the OE
3. Have more news reports about the brutal attacks on Christians to get Europe behind them or at least Neutral
4. Constantinople falls prior to the British able to send naval support to the OE. (the decent fight of the OE left Britain and France to offer support - in here they are trampled so everyone views the OE as a lost cause)
5. IN the treaty of SS -- Bulgaria adds Constantinople and Thrace to their empire.
6. At the congress of Berlin Bismarck realizes that Bulgaria will be much to powerful for all to accept this situation.
7. The massive defeat of the OE is to major for anyone to believe it could survive
8. SO with the need of France and GB to keep Russia or Russian puppets from controlling the Straights a new strategy happens
9. The colonization of the OE
a. No wants Bulgaria to be to strong - SO the Byz empire is formed
b. France and GB divide up the Arab states as per the end of WW1
c. Bulgaria gets its borders per the Treaty of the Congress of Berlin
d. The Byz state Gets Thrace to Thessaloniki. The get the Straights up to the 300 km into Anatolia. Like Belgium guarantees of this state are the great powers. A Brit royal is made king with an international peace keeping force of several battalions from France, GB, Russia, Germany being represented.
1. Russians use 250 - 300 k troops
2. Instead of a siege of Plevna you have enough troops to overwhelm the OE
3. Have more news reports about the brutal attacks on Christians to get Europe behind them or at least Neutral
4. Constantinople falls prior to the British able to send naval support to the OE. (the decent fight of the OE left Britain and France to offer support - in here they are trampled so everyone views the OE as a lost cause)
5. IN the treaty of SS -- Bulgaria adds Constantinople and Thrace to their empire.
6. At the congress of Berlin Bismarck realizes that Bulgaria will be much to powerful for all to accept this situation.
7. The massive defeat of the OE is to major for anyone to believe it could survive
8. SO with the need of France and GB to keep Russia or Russian puppets from controlling the Straights a new strategy happens
9. The colonization of the OE
a. No wants Bulgaria to be to strong - SO the Byz empire is formed
b. France and GB divide up the Arab states as per the end of WW1
c. Bulgaria gets its borders per the Treaty of the Congress of Berlin
d. The Byz state Gets Thrace to Thessaloniki. The get the Straights up to the 300 km into Anatolia. Like Belgium guarantees of this state are the great powers. A Brit royal is made king with an international peace keeping force of several battalions from France, GB, Russia, Germany being represented.
If this is a 19th century restoration, I doubt anyone is going to care about the Roman-Byzantine tendency to elevate competent non-royals to the purple. They’re going to be far more interested in the vested idea of established nobility, and they’ll also be quite enamored with the idea of restoring an actual imperial dynasty.
I dunno, Bulgaria had a Tsar...
So the San Stefano Bulgaria is considered "too strong", so instead Greece (with the Straits!) and a colossal chunk of Anatolia is a compromise with a British monarch? Why is Russia going to possibly go for a giant British puppet state in the Eastern Mediterranean controlling the Straits and able to project power into the Black Sea, and to add insult to injury, calls itself the resurrection of the Second Rome?
trajen777
Banned
No Greece -- a new entity -- The Congress of Berlin took much of what the treaty of SS give Russia -- Russia had no choice in the matter and was forced at the Congress in the real world to accept the situation ..
Does Greece (in 1878 borders) still exist in your scenario? Does the Byzantine Empire co-exist with Greece, since Greece and this state would have a very strong desire to unite. And why does Russia have no choice here when they just decisively defeated the Ottoman Empire far worse than OTL? Why is their position in negotiating this so poor? Why is there not a middle ground they can find between "total Russian victory" and "total British victory?" even if the Ottoman Empire is partitioned as a result?
The British were close to an alliance with the Russians after the 7YW. It didn't happen due to British cockiness and unwillingness to agree to come to Russian aid against the Ottomans, leaving the UK without an ally in the ARW.
Have the Brits be smarter about avoiding isolation, and agreed to the Russian terms. The French ally with the Ottomans instead. The Brits eventually get dragged into a war with the Ottomans, and their naval bombardment allows Constantinople to be taken. Neither Britain nor Russia wants the other side to have the Straits, so it is set up as a joint protectorate. Turks leave in large numbers and Greeks start moving in.
After Greek independence, there is a strong movement towards union between Greek Kingdom and Constantinople. It takes a couple of decades but the Brits and Russians eventually agree, seeing it as inevitable and better to curry favour with the Greeks.
Post-union a Greek King declares the new Roman Empire to cement national pride behind his dynasty and establish revanchist claims in remaining Ottoman territory.
Have the Brits be smarter about avoiding isolation, and agreed to the Russian terms. The French ally with the Ottomans instead. The Brits eventually get dragged into a war with the Ottomans, and their naval bombardment allows Constantinople to be taken. Neither Britain nor Russia wants the other side to have the Straits, so it is set up as a joint protectorate. Turks leave in large numbers and Greeks start moving in.
After Greek independence, there is a strong movement towards union between Greek Kingdom and Constantinople. It takes a couple of decades but the Brits and Russians eventually agree, seeing it as inevitable and better to curry favour with the Greeks.
Post-union a Greek King declares the new Roman Empire to cement national pride behind his dynasty and establish revanchist claims in remaining Ottoman territory.
trajen777
Banned
In real world the Russians were held up after the seige of p.. The western powered delft good enough by oe defence to support the oe and a Brit fleet arrived in the straights. The treaty is ss was very pro russian however the congress of Berlin basically said no to the treaty of ss. Britan France and germany basically said ok Russia u won but forget the treaty of ss you get this instead. No one wanted the Russians to be in the Mediterranean and ss allowed Bulgaria to have ports there. Bulgaria at this time was a russian satellite. Russia had no choice. So what I did is Russia hammers oe , no seige of p, so the other powers give up on oe. By creating a new countrie u have a destroyed oe, Russia not in med, britan and France get Arab states, and a open non alliagned but protected new byz empire. I think in future it would merge with greece
Dementor
Banned
Which was translated as King in English. Not incorrect, since the term had lost its meaning as an imperial title in Bulgaria.
It was the same case with the Basileus (the title of the Byzantine Emperor) of Greece and the Mbret (derived from Emperor) of Albania.