Byzantine Empire Enduring

Ok, some of you know that i posted another Byzantine timeline, which sucked, so i deleted that and started over from scratch. things you need to know are...

1. if it seems oddly generic, then that means i am unable to find the correct dynasty or person or even a nation.
2. i am employing a medium butterfly theory. butterfly effects take a long time to get anywhere.
3. Because i am literally unable to comprehend the world without mongols, i've included them, under the above reasoning. its a different person with a different tribe.
4. please excuse all spelling or grammar errors.
5. there is mention of the Greek people gaining independence. remember there are two cultures of the greeks. the roman one and the Hellenist one. the latter controls Greece proper.
6. the Roman and hellenist Greeks worked together to settle north america. they didnt get too much land, but its still somewhat better than the other states in the area. even in 1810, and independent, it still retains good relations with Byzantium.
7. i still need to come up with a unique name for the Byzantines.

the timeline stops at 1810, and I welcome ideas in which direction, generally, to go from there. a fractured world in which there are no true superpowers, a world united in peace after a horrific war somewhere, or the world ends due to a nuclear war instigated between two or more superpowers, and so on.

its also open to expansion. particularly the 296 years at the end coudl do with some expanding.

the point of divergence is in 995, when Basil II married, and had a son.

995: Basil II marries a low-born female, to the displeasure of some in the senate, and gets an heir soon after.

(things pretty much stay the same until...)

1025: Basil does not die, but instead is as healthy as ever, even if a bit old, and he continues his reign as Emperor.

1026: barely 2 months in, Sicily is invaded by the Byzantines, who gain control of the island shortly after. meanwhile the Empire further stabilizes when even more money and population are available. the imperial treasury only gets larger and larger, affording a bigger army, more infrastructure and so on.

1027: Basil II declares an end to all offensive warfare to focus on the state itself. because there were no major enemies, and the countries surrounding Byzantium did not need to be pissed off.

1056: Basil dies, leaving behind his grandson, George, as Emperor. Basil did a good job educating his son, and in turn his son as well, therefore, George was an able Emperor with a family, but not as good as Basil. with a full treasury, a rock solid state, with an economic system the envy of other states, George continued the policies of Basil, although somewhat more guarded about his own weaknesses.

1071: with Byzantium still the major power, and its many allies, the Turkish peoples did not dare attack such a strong target, so they focus on the weaker ones. over time they settled in Iran and other places.

1090: under a rule of another Emperor of the same dynasty, Byzantium tried to expand its holdings. Wallachia was briefly invaded before agreeing to be a Byzantine Vassal. he then concentrated on the east, where the Fatimid caliphate was still at large.

1094: with 4 years of subtle preparation ( so that the Fatimid don't notice it) they then charge directly south straight to Jerusalem. the Arab armies, surprised, were destroyed as Jerusalem and the surrounding areas, including the Sinai peninsula, was taken.

the Fatimid's were shocked to see the Romans charge to Jerusalem and take it in less than 4 months, with the best Arab armies sent to oppose them were wiped out. they are afraid that Cairo would be next.

1096: they were wrong. the Byzantines made their way south again, this time with the support of the relatively ancient Abbasid Caliphate. together, they made their way south into Arabian lands. the Abbasid took care of the eastern half, while Byzantium focused on the western half.

1097: a year later, Byzantine troops entered mecca, and their superior discipline held themselves from razing the Islamic capital. as agreed beforehand, the Abbasid Caliphate took all of the Byzantine conquests that they made from 1094 onwards.

the effect is, there are two major caliphate powers. the Abbasid, friendly to Constantinople, and in a good overall position, and the Fatimid, hostile to Byzantium and the Abbasid, in a bad position. but Byzantium isn't finished.

1100: three years later, the doom of the Fatimid approach. the Emperor toured various European countries asking for their help to end the Fatimid caliphate with Byzantium and the Abbasid Caliphate. some western states, seeing the wisdom of the Emperors words (after all, a caliphate friendly to Byzantium and allies were not a threat to them, as Byzantium can keep them in line) agreed to help.

Three things happened in relatively fast pace: the First Crusade, Aimed for Alexandria begins to sail there and Battle the Caliphate. then Byzantium and their new Abbasid Allies, stormed into Egypt from the Sinai. the Fatimid army fought hard, but the rule of the Fatimid caliph is harsh and he isn't very popular. a revolt in Cairo messed things up even more, spelling doom for the caliphate.

1101: the Fatimid Caliphate falls under the combined Crusader, Byzantine and Abbasid might. Cairo was taken and the caliph executed. the Abbasid caliphate is restored to most of its former glory.

1102: Byzantium is in an amazing state. the Arabs are removed as a threat (until a new caliphate comes along at least), they had no hostile enemies in the Danube frontier, with everything secured, Byzantium stops all the offensive campaigns again and focuses inwards.

1154: 52 years later, the Abbasid caliphate no longer exists. it seems that they had a series of bad caliphs, and the last one died heirless, so it pretty much fell apart. Byzantium increases security on the eastern frontier, saying that it cant lose its guard.

1182-1208: Bulgarian rebels, apparently funded by a vengeful frankish King, eventually won aganst Byzantium and established the second Bulgarian Empire. however, both empires exhausted themselves, and heavy taxes were levied on the Serbians.

...which they themselves revolted. Byzantium really was in no fit state (militarily) to continue suppressing them so they just let them go in 1214.

1216: the Byzantines gradually lowered taxes until the income rate matches the expenses, which is at a reasonable level for a state of this size.

1218: Byzantium adopts gunpowder, when Chinese merchants demonstrate the power of it. the reason for giving Byzantium gunpower was that the mongols destroyed the chinese state, and is making their way west, destroying all those who oppose them. Byzantium decides to heed the cryptic warnings after several Turkish nations on the eastern end of Iran are wiped out.

1250: Iran is defeated and conquered by the mongols. a caliphate ruling from Jerusalem to Kuwait is on the front lines. that same Caliphate decided to resist the mongols, because they know they have to be defeated at some point.

1252: barely two years later, Baghdad and Kuwait city is captured and razed pretty horrifically. still they continue. also, this brings Byzantium into direct contact with the mongols.

1254: Byzantium, learning of their true power and scope realizes that it cannot hope to resist the mongols and emerge fine after it, particularly if the major cities were razed. so when the mongols met the Emperor in Constantinople, the Emperor went out of his way to be nice to the diplomats, and offering them gifts and stuff.

the gifts, and their nice behavior paid off. the mongols promised to leave Byzantium alone, if they have free passage through the state, and military assistance whenever required. Byzantium accepted.

1256: the caliphate was destroyed as the mongols took Jerusalem, and razed it. the Byzantine bribe to save the city failed.

1259: Bulgaria made to fight the mongols, and was quickly destroyed as the mongols armies came from the south and north of the Empire. Byzantium, seeing an opportunity asks the Mongolians to turn the area over to them. they agreed.

1260: Serbia, in full war mode, attacks the mongols at Sofia. only to find that it wasn't just the mongols. they attacked a major city jointly defended by Byzantium and the mongols. the results aren't pretty. it resulted in the defeat of the Serbian army.

for this outrage, Byzantium provided Mongolia with the troops necessary for the Serbian campaign. Serbia, for its part, knew what was coming and prepared for it.

1264: four years later, Serbia is destroyed, with the capital city razed. Byzantium takes over administration of the area.

1270: Mongolia collapses when its leader dies. seems he didn't name a successor. Byzantium takes the opportunity, and frees itself from mongol control. the various mongol khanates...don't really care. or cant force the issue. no one really knows.

1271-1400: the Balkans is slowly rebuilt. the Serbians and Bulgarians recognize that they need to fix their homelands before even thinking about rebelling again.

the eastern border, due to various caliphates trying to invade merely settles on the Euphrates river. the Arabs aren't much of a threat.

1423: the Serbians and the Bulgarians request their independence, peacefully. the Byzantine Emperor considers it, and lets them go. better to have friends in the Balkans, than bitter enemies. its also way cheaper.

1424-1512: crisis of the 15th century. the previous Emperor died, and bad ones came into power. the result s that they set Byzantium back about 50 years, empty the treasury, alienate the Greeks in their homeland so much they broke away from Byzantium. finally the people had enough, stormed the palace and killed the last of the Macedonian Dynasty. they elected Constantine XI of the Palaiologan Dynasty (same dynasty, different people)

1513: Constantine knew that he had a difficult job to do. firstly, he reduced expenses as much as he could without sacrificing the military or the social policies of the state. then he repealed all the ridiculous laws that his predecessors made, and finally, he ensured that to prevent future bad Emperors, the imperial senate can impeach him, and elect a new person of the same, or different dynasty.

he also knew that Byzantium, despite tis earlier troubles, is still considered the strongest power in the region, capable of challenging Arabian or Turkish power in the east, Russian power in the north, and various powers in the west. Byzantium needed to keep up the power and prestige, knowing that it would save them eventually.

1514-1810: the next 296 years of Byzantium being relatively isolated form the outside world is fairly uneventful. they normalized relations with the Hellenist Greeks, the Arabs states stabilized, and prospered to a point. Byzantium underwent an industrial revolution when they tried to find a faster way of moving people and cargo across the state. they invented rail roads, which in turn cause many new industries to form and flourish.

and that, in turn, made a number of social issues. it was really difficult, with revolts nearly toppling the state, but the social situation improved, education made compulsory, improved medical care, and so on. lastly they took the currency out of Gold standard.

they also tried to expand, both peacefully and militarily. they weren't successful in the west, and were only temporarily successful in the east. even the Jewish state of Israel only lasted a century, before begin overrun by Arabs.

In the international side, its relatively stable. the british, Byzantine, french and Spanish Empires discovered America, and settled it. apparently china settled the west coast. the result is, there are five states in america by 1810. Gumshan, centered in a difficult to type Chinese city in the bay, the Greek states of America, centered in Nova Angora (where new york is), Mexico, centered in Mexico city, Canada, centered in Toronto, and the Confederates, centered in Richmond.

apparently, the British hated the fact that the romans managed to steal the north eastern lands from udnerneauth their noses. they settled on the south eastern coast instead, and tried, but failed, to take the north, their lands declared independence for tax reasons.

in south America, the French still lost colonies, but due to independence. modern Argentina, chile, Uruguay, and parts of Brazil is french, while Peru,Columbia, Venezuela are Spanish, while Brazil and the Guyanese states are all British.

timeline ends here.
 

Seldrin

Banned
Two things I noticed strictly from an uneducated viewpoint:
1. I'm not sure how plausible the Byzantine/Abbasid or Byzantine/Mongol alliances are and
2. You need to put more detail into your TL particularly regarding the wider world, for example, why did the Abbasids/China collapse, why were the Bulgarians funded by Vengeful Franks etc.

Other than that, It's certainly a different though no less interesting spin on the old Cliche of a surviving Byzantine state.
 
I like the idea of this timeline. But I have a few queries:

1. The Syrian frontier against the Arabs seems large, how did they manage to keep control?

2. Having a crusade seems very strange if Byzantium has a Muslim client state (Abbasids). I doubt the Abbasids would be able to legitimise their rule if that happened.

3. If the Abbasids are restored to 'most of its former glory', it would be too much of a threat to the Byzantines to allow its existence. I think it's more likely the Byzantines would annex those areas, especially Egypt.

4. Why are the Mongols so successful in this TL, escept for their obvious collapse, that is.

5. 1514-1810 isn't eventful enough. Surely MANY important events would occur in 296 years.

6. Byzantine America doesn't make any sense. It's used far too much in AH. It isn't feasible, at least, not with the Byzantines still in the Eastern Mediterranean.

BTW, would you mind if I made an enduring Byzantine Empire timeline of my own?
 
Two things I noticed strictly from an uneducated viewpoint:
1. I'm not sure how plausible the Byzantine/Abbasid or Byzantine/Mongol alliances are and
2. You need to put more detail into your TL particularly regarding the wider world, for example, why did the Abbasids/China collapse, why were the Bulgarians funded by Vengeful Franks etc.

Other than that, It's certainly a different though no less interesting spin on the old Cliche of a surviving Byzantine state.

1. the Byzantine mongol alliance happened in the OTL, and the Byzantine Abbasid alliance didn't last long. (they fell apart)
2. its supposed to be a byzantine centric timeline, pretty much ignoring the outside world if it didnt concern Byzantium.

I like the idea of this timeline. But I have a few queries:

1. The Syrian frontier against the Arabs seems large, how did they manage to keep control?

i didnt think they qwould organize a decent army capable of opposing Byzantine foprces int he area, and suceed.

2. Having a crusade seems very strange if Byzantium has a Muslim client state (Abbasids). I doubt the Abbasids would be able to legitimise their rule if that happened.
whoops. i didnt think of that. additionally i didnt think Byzantium woudl be capable to make this beachhead, considering their efforts at the Sinai.

and it isnt a client state. that would be.. odd.

3. If the Abbasids are restored to 'most of its former glory', it would be
too much of a threat to the Byzantines to allow its existence. I think it's more likely the Byzantines would annex those areas, especially Egypt.
i honestly thought about that. i just didn't know of their treatment of Muslims, and i seriously doubt the Muslims would like to be under roman rule, nor would they be in control for any decent time.

4. Why are the Mongols so successful in this TL, escept for their obvious collapse, that is.
they were a different tribe, with a somewhat smarter leader. i called it the mongols cause i dont know if different tribes affect the name.

5. 1514-1810 isn't eventful enough. Surely MANY important events would occur in 296 years.
that was to be filled in later.

6. Byzantine America doesn't make any sense. It's used far too much in AH. It isn't feasible, at least, not with the Byzantines still in the Eastern Mediterranean.
good point, but Byzantium did this tom limit the other powers, and to spread their culture.

BTW, would you mind if I made an enduring Byzantine Empire timeline of my own?
go right ahead.
 
1. the Byzantine mongol alliance happened in the OTL, and the Byzantine Abbasid alliance didn't last long. (they fell apart)
2. its supposed to be a byzantine centric timeline, pretty much ignoring the outside world if it didnt concern Byzantium.

Addressing the Byzantine stuff in this timeline:

1: In circumstances that are less likely to apply this timeline. Not to say it can't happen, but a strong Byzantium is more likely to be a target.
2: Still important to know a little more on events, at least those of the immediate neighbors.

i didnt think they qwould organize a decent army capable of opposing Byzantine foprces int he area, and suceed.

Why not? This needs more than "the Byzantines were just that good."

i honestly thought about that. i just didn't know of their treatment of Muslims, and i seriously doubt the Muslims would like to be under roman rule, nor would they be in control for any decent time.

Short form: It varied, but by and large the Byzantines were capable of handling the issue about as well as Muslim powers could handle Christian subjects. Any Christian power taking Mecca or Medina is going to have such a huge impact on the Muslim world - and not a positive way - it hurts.

But whether they'd like to be under Roman rule or not, there's no way the Byzantines are replacing weaker Muslim neighbors with stronger ones intentionally, at least not in a scenario that works out well for the Byzantines.

good point, but Byzantium did this tom limit the other powers, and to spread their culture.

And that doesn't answer the logistical problems in the way.
 
I think it's really convenient for the Turks to simply turn away from Byzantium. Byzantium would be richer in this TL, and obviously Alp Arslan would understand the urgency of defeating them. Not to mention the Byzantine capture of Jerusalem was a bit silly. As to the mongols, there seems to me to be this belief that Christians and mongols love each other. This is not the case. As the primary rich power in the area designated, Byzantium would be a target for them.
 
I think it's really convenient for the Turks to simply turn away from Byzantium. Byzantium would be richer in this TL, and obviously Alp Arslan would understand the urgency of defeating them. Not to mention the Byzantine capture of Jerusalem was a bit silly. As to the mongols, there seems to me to be this belief that Christians and mongols love each other. This is not the case. As the primary rich power in the area designated, Byzantium would be a target for them.

Well, the Seljuks did intend to deal with the Fatamids, but that doesn't rule out campaigning against the Byzantines.

At the very least, Alp Arslan will want the Byzantines to stay off his back while he's focusing on the Fatamids (like he did OTL, but even more so).
 
Addressing the Byzantine stuff in this timeline:

1: In circumstances that are less likely to apply this timeline. Not to say it can't happen, but a strong Byzantium is more likely to be a target.
2: Still important to know a little more on events, at least those of the immediate neighbors.

1. i suppose ill change it so the mongols betray Byzantium at some point, and tries to take Constantinople.
2. but would Byzantium really care?

Why not? This needs more than "the Byzantines were just that good."
....no idea. ill change that too.

Short form: It varied, but by and large the Byzantines were capable of handling the issue about as well as Muslim powers could handle Christian subjects. Any Christian power taking Mecca or Medina is going to have such a huge impact on the Muslim world - and not a positive way - it hurts.

But whether they'd like to be under Roman rule or not, there's no way the Byzantines are replacing weaker Muslim neighbors with stronger ones intentionally, at least not in a scenario that works out well for the Byzantines.
the idea did seem silly even to me, so ill change that so the Romans annex the area instead, pretty much restoring the the old borders, plus about half of arabia.

And that doesn't answer the logistical problems in the way.
ill remove that then.

I think it's really convenient for the Turks to simply turn away from Byzantium. Byzantium would be richer in this TL, and obviously Alp Arslan would understand the urgency of defeating them. Not to mention the Byzantine capture of Jerusalem was a bit silly. As to the mongols, there seems to me to be this belief that Christians and mongols love each other. This is not the case. As the primary rich power in the area designated, Byzantium would be a target for them.

alp arslan wouldn't exist as the same person. for all everyone knows, he would think that a rich ally is better for them. plus, they may not even exist.

Byzantium had 4 years to prepare for the war against the Fatimid's. they could conceivably gather a large professional army that can reach Jerusalem in a year at most. it probably takes a month to walk from antioch to Jerusalem unopposed...

about the mongols.. yeah since they would be facing a much stronger (if not completely stable) Byzantium, they might have more trouble.

changes i will make:

1. Byzantium takes longer to conquer the Fatimid caliphate, with little outside help. whether they can truly do this is questionable.
2. the mongols do not ally with Byzantium.
3. Greek America don't exist.

of course, on the first point, its likely to be temporary. either the mongols invade and trash the region or they revolt.
 
i have another question. is Byzantium really that rich? i mean if they survived into the modern era with Constantinople not being conquered once, would they be one of the richer nations on earth?

to be simple, i dont know what kind of riches Constantinople has. cultural wealth, economic wealth, infrastructure wealth, or all of the above.
 
i have another question. is Byzantium really that rich? i mean if they survived into the modern era with Constantinople not being conquered once, would they be one of the richer nations on earth?

to be simple, i dont know what kind of riches Constantinople has. cultural wealth, economic wealth, infrastructure wealth, or all of the above.

Byzantium, depending on its borders, will probably not be rich, but it won't be poor either.
 
i have another question. is Byzantium really that rich? i mean if they survived into the modern era with Constantinople not being conquered once, would they be one of the richer nations on earth?

to be simple, i dont know what kind of riches Constantinople has. cultural wealth, economic wealth, infrastructure wealth, or all of the above.

Assuming they have Egypt and have secured it, they'll have a reliable grain supply, allowing them to stockpile and export grain.

If they keep Anatolia, they have a source of gold, and I think bronze and iron. But it's biggest value is as a defensible frontier at the Caucasus and Zagros mountains. If the Byzantines survived until the industrial revolution, they'll have chrome, bauxite, aluminium, etc. Which will be quite valuable. I think Anatolia has some coal as well.

Syria also has grain, but I'm not sure about much else. There are major urban centres though. If they have Jerusalem, they'll get money from pilgrimages.

If they reconquer Southern Italy, they'll have glassware, I guess.

And there'll be wine production and fishing, of course. And if they come up with the idea to build the Suez Canal, they'll get tolls from that. They can have Bosphorus tolls as well.

Elfwine said:
Any Christian power taking Mecca or Medina is going to have such a huge impact on the Muslim world - and not a positive way - it hurts.

I agree. I think the Byzantines will just pay off the sheikh of Hedjaz, like the Brits did before WWI.
 
they would also annex a good part of arabia, giving them some oil.

so basically, restoring the frontier to the original borders is going to turn into a Byzantine wank, unless these territories revolt or is conquered.

id like to avoid that.
 
Well, define Byzantine wank.

What Hrvatskiwi said sounds like a fairly solid position, but not really a wank in terms of prosperity. None of those sources of income, even the gold mines in eastern Anatolia/Armenia or tolls on the Bosporus and Suez, are really going to spell riches beyond the dreams of avarice in the long term.

The full reconquest itself on the other hand is something of a wank. The Byzantines might be able to do it - but its the outcome to avoid if you're really committed anti-wank.

Using this map for convenience:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Maps-roman-empire-peak-150AD.jpg

Anything beyond Cyrenacia, Van in Armenia, and western Assyria is probably overextension (in the long term), and Egypt+Cyrenacia is quite a project.
 
Last edited:
Byzantine America is quite ASB. And Hellenistic Greeks is a quite modern concept, sure that idea might be born in a surviving Roman Empire, but it would probably not be an independence movement, just a movement to Hellenize the Empire a little more. Like Turkish nationalism in the Ottoman Empire.
 
Byzantine America is quite ASB. And Hellenistic Greeks is a quite modern concept, sure that idea might be born in a surviving Roman Empire, but it would probably not be an independence movement, just a movement to Hellenize the Empire a little more. Like Turkish nationalism in the Ottoman Empire.

This. Only if the Byzantine Empire continues to lose its non-Greek land that all it has left are mostly territories populated by Greeks.
 
i agree that Byzantium invading, and destroying the fatimids is a major over extension, so i removed that, for the most part. they still had a war, over Jerusalem, which was fought over two years.

the result is that, Byzantium didn't achieve their goals, but the Fatimid navy and army are largely destroyed.
 
This is something i posted in another thread i hope its ok to just copy it over, saves typing it again.


What of the Mongols, i know around this time they leant towards Buddhism and were pretty sympathetic towards Christianity. Some important Mongol figures were baptised. Can a situation develop where the Mongols intervene.
Maybe introduce a Christian figure who makes a pilgrimage to the Mongol leader/s at some point, pleads for their help, tells them Christianity is in danger, and convinces them to assist Constantinople. That could be quite a story. A similar thing happened with the Huns, was it Pope Leo ?.

I still like this, the idea of the Mongols being awed by Byzantium, possibly conquering it, in order to inherit and stiffen Byzantium, so theres maybe a mirror with the Franks/Rome. The overawed nomads wanting to become Byzantium, or something along these lines that breathes new blood ino the Empire, i'm sure the Byzantines were clever enough to overawe the mongol leaders with smoke, incense and magic.

Or maybe some section of the Turkish tribal family, the Muslim armies had some tough battle on their hands to convert the Turks, it's not far fetched for the struggle to go against the Muslims with some Christian turkish culture fighting it's way to the top.

Maybe the Christian mongols or Turks, theres lots of room here for good stories, are overcome with the glory, the duty of reconquering Jerusalem for Christianity. Think about the way that Christianity took hold of the Germanic tribes, and the various faction fighting, and campaigns that were fought for varying brands of Christian beliefs. I just find this an exciting idea.

Or evengiven the proximity of Buddishm to the turks and mongols, and both cultures were at times pro buddhist, some turkic people converting to buddhism in the 3rd and 4th centuries, maybe Christian Byzantium, Buhdist turks or mongols and Mulim arabs come into conflict in the region roughly eastern turkey norther iran, or possibly a new religion, a mixture of christianity and buddhism.
 
This is something i posted in another thread i hope its ok to just copy it over, saves typing it again.


What of the Mongols, i know around this time they leant towards Buddhism and were pretty sympathetic towards Christianity. Some important Mongol figures were baptised. Can a situation develop where the Mongols intervene.
Maybe introduce a Christian figure who makes a pilgrimage to the Mongol leader/s at some point, pleads for their help, tells them Christianity is in danger, and convinces them to assist Constantinople. That could be quite a story. A similar thing happened with the Huns, was it Pope Leo ?.

that is a good idea, but are the Byzantines truly sadistic enough to basically ally with the mongols, for the purpose of destroying Islam?
 
The Mongols were not entirely unreasonable, i dont see them as blood thirsty primatives, they were no more or less brutal than any other society was in those days.
 
Top