WI Byzantium collapses first instead of the West

Hey guys,

Here's an idea : What if instead of the Western Roman Empire collapsing and the East (Byzantium) living another 1000 years, what if it was the other way around?

How would've thing's been different because of such a divergence?
 
I don't think that possible, If I remember right the Eastern half wasn't as badly organized as the West nor did it have to deal with using Foederati or other non-roman troops.
 
Hey guys,

Here's an idea : What if instead of the Western Roman Empire collapsing and the East (Byzantium) living another 1000 years, what if it was the other way around?

How would've thing's been different because of such a divergence?

I'm not sure how this could happen, honestly. The eastern provinces were always of a higher priority than the West, and Constantinople was much more defendable than Rome anyhow.
 
Unlikely. The East was more densely populated and richer than the West and thus more able to support a complex state like the late Roman Empire. Changing that dynamic and making Northern and Western Europe richer requires the discovery of the America's so suddenly trade to the East isn't the only form of international trade.
 
The thing about the east falling, is that it is much more easlily defensible and prosperous. You cant really take Byzantium by the landward side (at least if you're a nomad), and crossing over into Asia...is extremely difficult if you dont have a top of the line navy able to go head to head with the Roman one.
 
I'm not sure how this could happen, honestly. The eastern provinces were always of a higher priority than the West, and Constantinople was much more defendable than Rome anyhow.

Option #1: Historically, Attila the Hun had to make this decision: choosing between the richer target and the easier target. Despite his lust for gold, he chose to focus on the easier target, which is the Western Roman Empire. Suppose Attila makes another decision and his army ends up being broken while besieging the walls of Constantinople. While Attila is broken, the Byzantines are left a ghost of their former selves and succumb to Persian and later Arabian Muslim pressure. In the meantime, the weak Western Roman Empire is left in a power vacuum: there's nobody around to seriously contest it, which is good because it's so weak. Over time, the Western Roman Empire becomes resurgent.

Option #2: Emperor Justinian isn't such a paranoid fuck and appoints Belisarius as Western Roman Emperor, governing Italy, southern Spain, the northern bit of Morocco, Tunisia and the coast of modern day Libya. The Byzantines eventually withdraw their forces to ward off the Sassanids, but Belisarius and the dynasty that he spawns govern on their own power together with the Bishop of Rome. With a couple of good emperors, the WRE consolidates and becomes a major power in Western Europe and the western Mediterranean Sea, competing with the Franks for recognition as the most important power of the region.

Mind you, this is coming from someone who is no expert in Late Antiquity.
 
Last edited:
. Suppose Attila makes another decision and his army ends up being broken while besieging the walls of Constantinople. While Attila is broken, the Byzantines are left a ghost of their former selves and succumb to Persian and later Arabian Muslim pressure.

But it's unlikely that Rhomaion would be a ghost of it's former self in such a situation. Attila in an attack on Constantinople would ravage Thrace but the wealth and strength of the Eastern Empire came from Asia Minor, the Levant and above all Egypt, all of which would remain untouched in this scenario. Maybe if the Persians attack in the East at the same time but even so, what happens then is that the Roman armies head East to fight the Persians while Constantinople weathers the siege, easily resupplied by sea.

This happened IOTL in the 626 siege where the Persians and Avars besieged Constantinople while the emperor Heraclius headed off to Mesopotamia to take the war to Persia. Against an enemy with little siege and naval capability Constantinople is almost impregnable.
 
Last edited:
But it's unlikely that Rhomaion would be a ghost of it's former self in such a situation. Atilla in an attack on Constantinople would ravage Thrace but the wealth and strength of the Eastern Empire came from Asia Minor, the Levant and above all Egypt, all of which would remain untouched in this scenario.

And even Thrace is only going to be short term ravaged - one siege is hardly going to be something with decades long effects, let alone centuries.
 
But it's unlikely that Rhomaion would be a ghost of it's former self in such a situation. Attila in an attack on Constantinople would ravage Thrace but the wealth and strength of the Eastern Empire came from Asia Minor, the Levant and above all Egypt, all of which would remain untouched in this scenario. Maybe if the Persians attack in the East at the same time but even so, what happens then is that the Roman armies head East to fight the Persians while Constantinople weathers the siege, easily resupplied by sea.

This happened IOTL in the 626 siege where the Persians and Avars besieged Constantinople while the emperor Heraclius headed off to Mesopotamia to take the war to Persia. Against an enemy with little siege and naval capability Constantinople is almost impregnable.

Oh well, that's even better. Both halves have a chance at surviving then :).
 
Option #1: Historically, Attila the Hun had to make this decision: choosing between the richer target and the easier target. Despite his lust for gold, he chose to focus on the easier target, which is the Western Roman Empire. Suppose Attila makes another decision and his army ends up being broken while besieging the walls of Constantinople. While Attila is broken, the Byzantines are left a ghost of their former selves and succumb to Persian and later Arabian Muslim pressure. In the meantime, the weak Western Roman Empire is left in a power vacuum: there's nobody around to seriously contest it, which is good because it's so weak. Over time, the Western Roman Empire becomes resurgent.

Atilla would have to be very suicidal to even attempt a siege of Constantinople even with the walls possibly still destroyed from the earthquake. He has the possibility of a drawn out siege and being surrounded and crushed.
 
Maybe when the goths stand victorious at Adraniople, the Parthians attack while some prophet unites the arabs and the east is attacked from three directions simultaneously. And...the emperor dies or goes insane.
 
Maybe when the goths stand victorious at Adraniople, the Parthians attack while some prophet unites the arabs and the east is attacked from three directions simultaneously. And...the emperor dies or goes insane.

While the Copts rise up in Egypt for good measure, ;)
 
Byzantium was bound to survive longer than the western empire for a few reasons:

1. The East was much richer than the West, having been the cradle of civilisation for millennia. Rome alone could not equal the combined wealth of Alexandria, Antioch, the Greek cities and the rest of the Hellenised east. Whenever barbarians crossed the frontier, the eastern emperors used their gold to persuade them to go elsewhere - usually, they would head west.

2. Defendable core territory. While from the time of the Arab invasions until the reign of Basil II, most of the Balkans was overrun and out of imperial control, this mattered little in terms of Byzantium's survival. For one, the barbarians could never cross into Asia Minor, where some of the richest and most productive provinces lay. Moreover, the core of the empire was relatively impervious to invaders. This consisted not just of Anatolia, but also the Peloponnese, mountainous Thessaly, the well-defended cities of Macedonia - and, of course, Constantinople.

3. Constantinople is probably the chief reason for Byzantium's longevity. It's geographic advantages are almost miraculous. No city in the west had anything approaching these benefits, not even the fortified Ravenna. Many wonder why a single city bore so much importance when the vast majority of Roman subjects lived in villages and hamlets tending to their farms. Yet, in the end, all their surplus went to the cities, and in the east, all roads led to Constantinople - to a much greater extent than those of the west ever led to Rome.

Constantinople was the bridge between the European and Asian parts of the Empire. An emperor holding the city could safely lose all of the Balkans to his enemy yet still draw on the massive resources he had further east. Moreover, Constantinople was an important naval base and allowed its owner free access to the Pontic coast as well as the Aegean. To topple the Byzantines would beyond a doubt require the capture of Constantinople. And when Rome fell, the technology needed to do that was still nearly a thousand years away.
 
I think the best bet would be a POD in the 4th century.
The best would be a civil war in the middle of the century. One contestant controls Asia and Egyt the other one the rest. No matter who wins the armies of the east will be weakened and the west will have more men compared to OTL.
The Goths attack on schedule and settle like OTL in Thrace/Moesia. Unlike OTL they never move till Italy. The west has to deal with Franks, Suebs, Burgundians etc. and is unable to support the east when an ambitous general/pissed of copts appear in Egypt.
Persia attacks Anatolia and Palestine when Egypt is in unrest.
No Egypt means no grain for Constantinople. The emperor of the east is overtrown and replaced by a random general. The general is good on the battlefield and beats the Persians back but his paranoia/desinterest in politics cost him the throne before he can retake Egypt.
After the Huns collaps move the freed Germanic people (Gepids, Ostrogoth etc.) southwards and become east Roman foederati.
They reenforce the troops in the devastated Levante and Armenia.
The next 50 years consist of power struggles between mighty generals, conflicts between the again stabilizing west and the unstable east and attacks on the borders.
In the end the foederati will act increasingly independend and Constantinople will be constantly unstable without grain from Egypt.
By the year 500 some general of Germanic origin will kill the emperor, wait a half year for a new emperor from the west and in the end name himself King of Thrace...
 
3. Constantinople is probably the chief reason for Byzantium's longevity. It's geographic advantages are almost miraculous. No city in the west had anything approaching these benefits, not even the fortified Ravenna. Many wonder why a single city bore so much importance when the vast majority of Roman subjects lived in villages and hamlets tending to their farms. Yet, in the end, all their surplus went to the cities, and in the east, all roads led to Constantinople - to a much greater extent than those of the west ever led to Rome.

Constantinople was the bridge between the European and Asian parts of the Empire. An emperor holding the city could safely lose all of the Balkans to his enemy yet still draw on the massive resources he had further east. Moreover, Constantinople was an important naval base and allowed its owner free access to the Pontic coast as well as the Aegean. To topple the Byzantines would beyond a doubt require the capture of Constantinople. And when Rome fell, the technology needed to do that was still nearly a thousand years away.

Its important to emphasis this point over all others. If you're a barbarian tribe in Europe, your only realistic route into the most valuable territory in the Eastern Empire is straight through Constantinople (the most heavily fortified city in the world). The Eastern Empire regularly weathered all sorts of invasions to its balkan territories, and it was something of a cliche that whomever was on the other side of the Danube at the time could do whatever it wanted as long as they left at the first sign of the Imperial army.
 
As a matter of interest, what was the western roman empire like culturally? I mean, if it did survive, ho much of an effect would it have on the culture of its lands?

As for how the lands of Byzantium would look culturally if it were to fall really depends on how it falls. I do quit like these questions as I have a soft spot for underdogs and the western roman empire near its end certainly was an underdog. (at least from my understanding)
 
Top