Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

[Xen]

What does that have to do with fundamentalism?

I imagine anyone who needs to ask that question dosent have a clue what fundamentalist religion actually is; its all fairlly self explanitory, Das; funtamentalist religion pushes an agenda of "we're right, all other are wrong", and violence, an dpushing ones religion on other generally ensues; prime examples would be most evangelical American Protestant groups

Xen, is OUR history plausible? Nope, its filled with those same deus ex machinas you deny, I keep stumbling upon those here and there.

Do you knpw what Dues ex machina stands for? it means "God through a machine", and is commentary when authors of stories just go in, and arbitrailly estbalish a situation, without actually looking a tplausible consequnces; somthign that history dosent have, because all courses of action have had thier due results and causialities flow from them; thier are no historicle "Dues ex machina" by the definition of the word, lest not forget to mention that if, for example, Napoleoninc era France is to have on eless enemy, France dose not magially becoem weaker then it was in real life; it is STRONGER then it was in rel life, because ti can devtoe more soldires to all its other enemies; dues ex machina is, similer to what was to North Kings Byzantium, take a nation who by all means shoudl be stronger then it was in real life, because ti has fewer enemies, the enemies it has are not nearlly as powerful or serious, a weak nation; thier is no reason for it- that Das, is Dues ex Machina, and history has none of it; it is an invention of the human mind to bear out ill planned story lines.

 

[das]

I imagine anyone who needs to ask that question dosent have a clue what fundamentalist religion actually is; its all fairlly self explanitory, Das; funtamentalist religion pushes an agenda of "we're right, all other are wrong", and violence, an dpushing ones religion on other generally ensues; prime examples would be most evangelical American Protestant groups

Every religion worth its name, apart from a few accomadationist ones, are fundamentalist. I personally don't see anything different between them poreaching their points of view and you preaching your own.

And, Xen, NK didn't even explain the situation himself in the actual TL; until then, at least, wait with the comments, like I do despite having a few disagreements myself.

EDIT: NK also said that it had something to do with Turks. Makes sense to me. Franks are weakened, but the Byzantines (who, btw, were still overstretched - another reason why they're weaker) also have to face a (Buddhist) Turkish empire in Persia, so its the Byzantine-Persian Wars all over again with the latter ruled by energetic new rulers.

Cuivienen, how far shoukd I take the althist chronologically? To 1000 AD?

 

[Xen]

Every religion worth its name, apart from a few accomadationist ones, are fundamentalist. I personally don't see anything different between them poreaching their points of view and you preaching your own.

"fundamentalism" is a specific term realteing to movments whithin a religion that are generally "anti-progress", and espouse the taking of radical, hardlines views; both christianity and islam have non fundamentlist branches, such as in generaly, Sunni islam, and Catholoscsm; dose these men that hese branches dont take thier faith seriouslly? of course; people can stil be incrediblly devoted to thier religion; but to be fundamentlaist is to be more in line with the religious radicals such as those present in islamic terrorist orginizations, or white supremasicst movements

And, Xen, NK didn't even explain the situation himself in the actual TL; until then, at least, wait with the comments, like I do despite having a few disagreements myself.

it's the little differences in personalities that help make us all unique

 

[das]

"fundamentalism" is a specific term realteing to movments whithin a religion that are generally "anti-progress", and espouse the taking of radical, hardlines views; both christianity and islam have non fundamentlist branches, such as in generaly, Sunni islam, and Catholoscsm; dose these men that hese branches dont take thier faith seriouslly? of course; people can stil be incrediblly devoted to thier religion; but to be fundamentlaist is to be more in line with the religious radicals such as those present in islamic terrorist orginizations, or white supremasicst movements

All religion, all ideology and all ideas imply that the person who posseses them believes that he is right and the others, if they disagree with him, are wrong. As for religious radicalism, well, I myself find it much more interesting then the peaceful cults.

Oh, and, just to annoy you: from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

fun.da.men.tal.ism n (1922) 1 a often cap: a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life
and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs 2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
-- fun.da.men.tal.ist n -- fundam entalist or fun.da.men.tal.is.tic adj

 

[Xen]

the 21st century definition has becoem a bit bit different; what were once 'roots" movments have become incrseinglly arrgoent, and sprouting from that, violent over thier particuler religion

In comparative religion, fundamentalism refers to anti-modernist movements in various religions.

In many ways religious fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon, characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture, even where the culture may be nominally influenced by the adherents' religion. The term can also refer specifically to the belief that one's religious texts are infallible and historically accurate, despite contradiction of these claims by modern scholarship.

Many groups described as fundamentalist often strongly object to this term because of the negative connotations it carries, or because it implies a similarity between themselves and other groups, which they find objectionable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

 

[das]

The 21st century, so far, only lasted for four years as far as I know (or is it five? I get confused with that stuff). The meaning will change a few hundred times... but anyway. Isn't religious violence a part of the roots, sorta? More recent roots, ofcourse...

 

[North King]

Xen, I'd hardly say that facing a full blown Turkish Empire on their Eastern Border is easier prey than a stagnating united Arab Caliphate...

 

[Xen]

I would; references to "the Turks", and how great the "Turkish mercenaries" were down play thge roles that the arabs actually played considerabley; the turks themselves, liek the mongols, couldnt even smelt iron; they had to rely on subject peoples to do it for them, and while that isnt a problem here, because the turks have an estbalished empire, they have an estbalished empire in a an area that, like more other areas of the world, dosent like being ruled by soemone else; and Persio-Iranian history is filled to the brim of native dynasties kicking out invadeing, and occupying powers from the Greeks to the Parthians to the Arabs, Turks and Mongols; the great eastgern Turkish empire is going to be instbale, anf ull of in-strife because they made thier home in Persia

 

[Xen]

and regardless of that, the Byzantines proved bale to fight off the Truks on numerous occasions; it was onlt betreay by crusaders that woudl lead to thie rdownfall, and the loss as Manzeterk was due to treachery of a Byzantine nobleman, not the superiorty of the Turkish army; if the sorry Byzantien state could normally expect to be able to fight off the turks, then a strogn byzantien empire will have no probalem doing so, particurlaye when the turks are stationed thus.

 

[Xen]

that said, do what you guys want with the NES, don tlet me spoil your fun on this account, I'm just sorta anal about this sorta thing.

 

[North King]

Despite the fact that in our "plausible" real history the Turks not only managed to establish a great empire in the *same area*, but that they also revived Islam to the extent that Turkish sultanates basically *were* the Middle East from the point they arrived onward? Despite the fact that even in OTL, the Turks were the ones who dealt the final deathblow to the Byzantines? Despite the fact that ITTL the Turks basically had no opponents worth mentioning in between their home and the Empire, and so they were able to unleash nearly their entire strength on the Byzantines?

Facts are, if there was no Arab Empire to conquer, the Turks would easily have kept going and going and going.... And this particular Byzantine Empire, which, BTW, is currently in the midst of a huge period of religious strife, is certainly not strong enough to stop the Turks in the first place, as they can barely hold on to most of their territories, but is now certainly much weaker after having lost the majority of their army to the Turkish horde.

There is no reason why a Turkish army should not be able, ITTL, to march up to the gates of Constantinople, batter them down, and burn the city. In fact, if the Turks didn't have so many other things to worry about, they probably could have done it OTL too.

 

[ThomAnder]

On another note... Have anyone here read the books "Sailing to Sarantium" and "Lord of Emperors" or something like that? It's a 2-books series where it's a fantasy setting, but is pretty much based off of real life (Justin-Justinian time). In it, When the old emperor died (aka Anastasius I in real life), the justinian equivalent in the book had one of the nephew killed and paved the way for the Justin equivalent to become emperor. Later on, the Justinian in the book was killed in a coup started by one of the living nephew of Anastasius I equivalent, and the Belisarius in the novel became emperor. At this time, the queen of the ruling faction in Italy-equivalent fled to Sarantium (aka Byzantium in real life) because her life was in danger, and hope to marry the Emperor to save her life and those of her people. Originally the Justinian in the book planned an invasion of the western empire and disregarded the proposed wedding, but when the Belisarius dude became emperor, he accepted the wedding, and the regent at the time in the book's Italy agreed to surrender to them (the regent remained as governor). As a result, Belisarius dude lead the army to attack the Persia equivalent instead, because they broke the peace treaty bought by justinian dude earlier. Belisarius dude soundly defeated the Persians in the book, and the series ended there. (It also hinted that the desert people uprising will overthrow the persians later on, but didn't say what will happen to the byzantine in the novel.)

Can this happen in OTL or if it did, what impact would it have?

 

[Xen]

Despite the fact that in our "plausible" real history the Turks not only managed to establish a great empire in the *same area*

why dont you take a quick peek on how long all those turkish powerst lasted; you'll be surprised.

but that they also revived Islam to the extent that Turkish sultanates basically *were* the Middle East from the point they arrived onward? Despite the fact that even in OTL, the Turks were the ones who dealt the final deathblow to the Byzantines?

he he, they dont have the benifit of being chapions of Islam, Zoroastirans dont belive in other convertign to thier religion, and the turks have now just set camp in an area where to be even remotelyl successful as ruling house, they woudl need to use religion; tough luck turks; you have a rich, powerful empire to your west, and are ruling over a people that hate you.

Despite the fact that ITTL the Turks basically had no opponents worth mentioning in between their home and the Empire, and so they were able to unleash nearly their entire strength on the Byzantines?

likewise, the Byzantien empire is more then powerful enough without having to deal with arab incursions to fight them, and the turks are going to be distracted by bloody rebellions in thie rown persian "homelands". hell it slikelly that if the Byzantine-Sassnaian alliance didnt make them allies, the Byzantines championing the nativ ePersians WOULD solidify peace between the two peoples

Facts are, if there was no Arab Empire to conquer, the Turks would easily have kept going and going and going....

fact is, without the arabs, the turks wouldnt have been able to conqure at all; it was the turks and arabs whom both formed the power of medieval islamic world, remove either fromt he equation, and the Byzantines, who were genereally able to have a situation in favor to them anyway, have a clear cut advatage.

And this particular Byzantine Empire, which, BTW, is currently in the midst of a huge period of religious strife, is certainly not strong enough to stop the Turks in the first place, as they can barely hold on to most of their territories, but is now certainly much weaker after having lost the majority of their army to the Turkish horde.

1)religious strife? over what, what wine to use? religious strife might enter the picture if the Byzantines would ever let any who was not orthodox into the government however, they didnt, and they wouldnt, and Greece still wont today, and still makes religious laws in its country; thie rmight be religious discontent in the provinces but "strife" implies that they have some sort of power in the government; they didnt
2)more then strong enough to stop the turks, and stop them dead in thier tracks; the RTL Byzantines were more then powerful enough to do it for most of thier history; TTL Byzantines are 10 fold stronger, and in an even bette rposition to halt the turks, whom are in a far worse position then they were in the RTL

There is no reason why a Turkish army should not be able, ITTL, to march up to the gates of Constantinople, batter them down, and burn the city. In fact, if the Turks didn't have so many other things to worry about, they probably could have done it OTL too.

1)religion; no islam, means that Persia is still Zoroastiran, Zoroastrians dont belive in others converting to thier religion, so thier will always be the hosiltity of the native Persian, Zoroastrians being ruled over by a forign peoples; the turks didnt have a religion whos pull was strong enough to have converts, nor the did the turks ever seem inclined to push thier native religion on anyone
2)The Byzantines agian, have 10 fold the resources and manpower they did in real life; the Turks, by contrast, have a fraction of the support of the islamic world they had in OTL, and a hostile native populace to boot
3)compounding the fact, the Byzantines, woudl be likelly to throw the Persian population into revolt; wouldnt be hard, given the circumstances the Persia was in at the moment
4)by comparison, the Byzantines proved themselves fully able to withstand th emight of the Persians, after thier intial reel from the arab-birst, bale to take them on, and in due time, the turks as well; the only reason the Byzanines fell, was because they called a crusade of non-orthodox christian powers, who despised and distrusted the byzantines (and indeed, the Byzantines were hardley trustable, or noble in those days, and while it may surprise you, I dont look up to, nor respect Byzantium at all much; I champion them because they aremuch undertouted in history, by those who woudl wish to pervert history)

why you gouys REALLY dont seem to understand is that you NEED the arab burst to take away Byzantine power; if you dont have it, the Byzantines are essentially a rock, and arnt going to be moveable until the late renaissance, when thier economic base because of essentially controlling east-west trade falls apart; hell it slikelly that insteadof the famous british monarchy, it woudl be the foums Byzantine monarchy even today!

 

[North King]

why dont you take a quick peek on how long all those turkish powerst lasted; you'll be surprised.

50 years for the Great Seljuk Sultanate. A great deal longer for the era of Turkish sultans as a whole.

he he, they dont have the benifit of being chapions of Islam, Zoroastirans dont belive in other convertign to thier religion, and the turks have now just set camp in an area where to be even remotelyl successful as ruling house, they woudl need to use religion; tough luck turks; you have a rich, powerful empire to your west, and are ruling over a people that hate you.

Who said the Persians were Zoroastrian? They were a mix of Zoroastrian, Christians, and Buddhists in my time line... And having a rich powerful empire to their west? Like I said, they're not that powerful.

likewise, the Byzantien empire is more then powerful enough without having to deal with arab incursions to fight them, and the turks are going to be distracted by bloody rebellions in thie rown persian "homelands". hell it slikelly that if the Byzantine-Sassnaian alliance didnt make them allies, the Byzantines championing the nativ ePersians WOULD solidify peace between the two peoples

Nonesense. Because there were Arab raiders for a considerable time, they disintegrated the Sassinid state, they took a great deal of land away from the Byzantines, and the new Persian dynasty that arose was quite anti-Byzantine, anti-Arab, and quite powerful, managing to occupy Byzantine attention for a considerable time... But they were greatly weakened by the invasion of Indian powers from the East, and thus couldn't stand up to the Turks, who cut straight through a weak, demoralized Persia, managed to batter back the Buddhist Balkhan Empire (gotta love that name), and then continued forth into Mesopotamia, wrecking havoc.

fact is, without the arabs, the turks wouldnt have been able to conqure at all; it was the turks and arabs whom both formed the power of medieval islamic world, remove either fromt he equation, and the Byzantines, who were genereally able to have a situation in favor to them anyway, have a clear cut advatage.

You completely forget the Persians, who, once conquered by a steppe nomad nation, abosorbed them. And Persia was probably richer than most of the rest of the Middle East until the Mongols moved in and destroyed their irrigation system, so saying that area isn't a good power base for an Empire is bull. And by the way, neither were fully removed from the Grand Equation.

1)religious strife? over what, what wine to use? religious strife might enter the picture if the Byzantines would ever let any who was not orthodox into the government however, they didnt, and they wouldnt, and Greece still wont today, and still makes religious laws in its country; thie rmight be religious discontent in the provinces but "strife" implies that they have some sort of power in the government; they didnt

Religious discontent is an understatment. Christians in this timeline were quite serious about their religion, and the rise of "Arab" Christianity in Palestine, Egypt, and Syria, gave the Byzantines something to chew on, as the Arabs imported their own mythology, got most of the locals to convert to it, and thus created a hybrid Christianity that was completely distasteful to the Byzantines. Not to mention without the unifying threat of an Islamic invasion, the Catholic/Orthodox divide was inevitably more serious.

2)more then strong enough to stop the turks, and stop them dead in thier tracks; the RTL Byzantines were more then powerful enough to do it for most of thier history; TTL Byzantines are 10 fold stronger, and in an even bette rposition to halt the turks, whom are in a far worse position then they were in the RTL

They were more than powerful enough to do it in the real timeline? Do explain, then, how the Byzantines lost almost all of Anatolia in the first 20 years of turkish invasions. Do explain how they never drove the Sultanate of Rum out. Do explain how they steadily fell apart due to Ottoman pressure.

And in this timeline, as I keep stressing, the Byzantines are not significantly stronger. They had the threat of Arab invaders for about 200 years, a hostile state in palestine for a couple hundred more, and a hostile Christianity springing up in the provinces that was incredibly distasteful to the Byzantines, and vice versa, hence, constant rebellions sprung up. Not to mention a powerful Persian revival... Do explain how the Byzantines are "10 fold stronger".

1)religion; no islam, means that Persia is still Zoroastiran, Zoroastrians dont belive in others converting to thier religion, so thier will always be the hosiltity of the native Persian, Zoroastrians being ruled over by a forign peoples; the turks didnt have a religion whos pull was strong enough to have converts, nor the did the turks ever seem inclined to push thier native religion on anyone

The Turks converted to Buddhism, which was the second most popular religion in Persia ITTL. Zoroastrians were still a powerful force in Persia, but not powerful enough to keep a foreign dynasty out. In other words, there were quite a few Zoroastrians, but since their dynasty collapsed, they weren't exactly in a position to argue.

2)The Byzantines agian, have 10 fold the resources and manpower they did in real life; the Turks, by contrast, have a fraction of the support of the islamic world they had in OTL, and a hostile native populace to boot

The Byzantines have probably 3 fold the manpower and resources at maximum--but they still ahve to deal with internal turmoil from people who just didn't consider themselves Romans.

3)compounding the fact, the Byzantines, woudl be likelly to throw the Persian population into revolt; wouldnt be hard, given the circumstances the Persia was in at the moment

So the Zoroastrians won't go for Turks, but they will for Byzantines? Give me a break. Heck, the Zorastrians also have this thing in their religions where it states the evil army of the apocalypse will come from the Balkans... Right where Byzantium comes from. Not a nice omen.

4)by comparison, the Byzantines proved themselves fully able to withstand th emight of the Persians, after thier intial reel from the arab-birst, bale to take them on, and in due time, the turks as well; the only reason the Byzanines fell, was because they called a crusade of non-orthodox christian powers, who despised and distrusted the byzantines (and indeed, the Byzantines were hardley trustable, or noble in those days, and while it may surprise you, I dont look up to, nor respect Byzantium at all much; I champion them because they aremuch undertouted in history, by those who woudl wish to pervert history)

The Byzantines weren't as powerful overall as they were in OTL.

So much so that they didn't even need a crusade to convince them to drop dead--but there were some of sorts.

why you gouys REALLY dont seem to understand is that you NEED the arab burst to take away Byzantine power; if you dont have it, the Byzantines are essentially a rock, and arnt going to be moveable until the late renaissance, when thier economic base because of essentially controlling east-west trade falls apart; hell it slikelly that insteadof the famous british monarchy, it woudl be the foums Byzantine monarchy even today!

There was an Arab burst--and besides that, nobody says the Byzantines have to have Arabs to kill them off. There are plenty of numerous outside forces that compound their problems. Short list:

1) Avars
2) Persians
3) Non Muslim Arabs
4) Nubians (if they can get their act together and unite, which they happened to ITTL)
5) Franks
6) Germans
7) Berbers (even if non Muslim, that doesn't mean they don't have motivations for attacking)
8) Christian Spaniards (who weren't likely to sulk under the Visigoths for much longer, or they might even have united under the Visigoths)
9) Slavs of some sort
10) Any Indian dynasty that gets off their arse and attacks westwards

etc, etc, etc.

 

[Xen]

all your doing is saying "hey, well, ummm, no, because that not gonna happen in my time line cause teh r0xx0rs" I'm not gonna waste my time trying to argue with people who just want to arbitrailly change history, regardless of logical circumstances, to suit themselves; it aint worth it.

dont take it personally NK; I love ya, and your modding style, but I hate you way of making alternate history with a divine passion

 

[North King]

all your doing is saying "hey, well, ummm, no, because that not gonna happen in my time line cause teh r0xx0rs" I'm not gonna waste my time trying to argue with people who just want to arbitrailly change history, regardless of logical circumstances, to suit themselves; it aint worth it.

dont take it personally NK; I love ya, and your modding style, but I hate you way of making alternate history with a divine passion

I'm not giving no reason... I'm giving plenty of good reasons why the Byzantines are just as screwed here, if not more so, than otherwise.

You just don't want to see a super-Rome get pwned.

 

[Xen]

You just don't want to see a super-Rome get pwned.

you've never read Gibbon have you? You need to, I hold pretty much the same veiw of the eastern empire he dose (well, I dont hate it as much as he dose, but I look down on it, certianlly) I've never equated the Byzantien empire with rome more then the fac tthat ti grew from it; other then that, its a distinct entity, worthy of soem respect, but not much from my eyes.

as for your "reasons" they all stem off dues ex machina; liek you making of Persia into a non-Zoroastrian exclusive nation; and incorperatinf chirsitan, and buddist elements (they one might add were not present in any signifiican tnumbers; the Persian persecuted any religion other then zoroastrianism with a zealous fury), or blatant falseatudes or half-truths, taken at a slant tot ry to prove your point(arab raiding making the Persian and Byzantien empires weaker? listen to yourself; if it had threat of making either weaker, they would have payed more attention to that front, stationed more troops, and the arab-burst owudl have had soem real intitial difficulty; thier success was partially due tot he simple unexpectedness of the burst itself), or how Persia "abosrbed" steppe conqeorrs; this isnt china, and did "absorb" so much as "kill" the steppe peoples.

so much of your history relies "magical differences" that it seems absurd every time I look at it and so, I simpley wont, my arguments done; liek I said before, dont let me ruin your fun, its your story, you do it how you want to; just dont go and try to pawn it off on me as being plausible.

 

[Xen]

You just don't want to see a super-Rome get pwned.

you've never read Gibbon have you? You need to, I hold pretty much the same veiw of the eastern empire he dose (well, I dont hate it as much as he dose, but I look down on it, certianlly) I've never equated the Byzantien empire with rome more then the fac tthat ti grew from it; other then that, its a distinct entity, worthy of soem respect, but not much from my eyes.

as for your "reasons" they all stem off dues ex machina; liek you making of Persia into a non-Zoroastrian exclusive nation; and incorperatinf chirsitan, and buddist elements (they one might add were not present in any signifiican tnumbers; the Persian persecuted any religion other then zoroastrianism with a zealous fury), or blatant falseatudes or half-truths, taken at a slant tot ry to prove your point(arab raiding making the Persian and Byzantien empires weaker? listen to yourself; if it had threat of making either weaker, they would have payed more attention to that front, stationed more troops, and the arab-burst owudl have had soem real intitial difficulty; thier success was partially due tot he simple unexpectedness of the burst itself), or how Persia "abosrbed" steppe conqeorrs; this isnt china, and did "absorb" so much as "kill" the steppe peoples.

so much of your history relies "magical differences" that it seems absurd every time I look at it and so, I simpley wont, my arguments done; liek I said before, dont let me ruin your fun, its your story, you do it how you want to; just dont go and try to pawn it off on me as being plausible.

 

[North King]

you've never read Gibbon have you? You need to, I hold pretty much the same veiw of the eastern empire he dose (well, I dont hate it as much as he dose, but I look down on it, certianlly) I've never equated the Byzantien empire with rome more then the fac tthat ti grew from it; other then that, its a distinct entity, worthy of soem respect, but not much from my eyes.

'Twas sarcasm, no need to get offended.

as for your "reasons" they all stem off dues ex machina; liek you making of Persia into a non-Zoroastrian exclusive nation; and incorperatinf chirsitan, and buddist elements (they one might add were not present in any signifiican tnumbers; the Persian persecuted any religion other then zoroastrianism with a zealous fury), or blatant falseatudes or half-truths, taken at a slant tot ry to prove your point(arab raiding making the Persian and Byzantien empires weaker? listen to yourself; if it had threat of making either weaker, they would have payed more attention to that front, stationed more troops, and the arab-burst owudl have had soem real intitial difficulty; thier success was partially due tot he simple unexpectedness of the burst itself), or how Persia "abosrbed" steppe conqeorrs; this isnt china, and did "absorb" so much as "kill" the steppe peoples.

Contrary to your belief, I don't invent the reasons after I decide what happens. I consider the reasons, then decide what happens due to them.

so much of your history relies "magical differences" that it seems absurd every time I look at it and so, I simpley wont, my arguments done; liek I said before, dont let me ruin your fun, its your story, you do it how you want to; just dont go and try to pawn it off on me as being plausible.

It is plausible, much more so than Byzantium going into some superrevival and conquering half the world.

 

[Xen]

I never suggested Byzantium woudl do such a thing; I think it smost plausible that Byzantium woudl lose Italy, Palestine upt to northern Lebanon, due to revolt, and civil discontent; egypt would be kept under firm grasp because of Alexandria's importance in the church, and having a good supply of grain si always teh sweet, and the Cyrenican garrison isnt that far away off; and etheipoians, as they did historically, woudl take care of the Nubians for the Byzantines; the northern border is what you have,the traditional border, and the east woudl essentially be that of tradition as well; that what I woudl hold for a (relitivlly) realistic Byzantium, assuming that they dont go total draconian, enforcing thier religious laws.