Alternate History Thread V

[das]

Temporally close or geographically close?

Both.

So what happens to Italy if the Franks are busily slaughtering each other?

Well, the Lombard kingdom will probably survive for longer, despite problems with the Arabs. The Lombards are also very likely to drive the Pope into the hands of the Byzantine Empire for the lack of Franks, if that inspires you to anything.

 

[Dachs]

Both.

Feh. Is it inside the bounds of the Empire?

Well, the Lombard kingdom will probably survive for longer, despite problems with the Arabs. The Lombards are also very likely to drive the Pope into the hands of the Byzantine Empire for the lack of Franks, if that inspires you to anything.

Assuming, of course, that the Byzantine government at the time wants anything to do with Italy...and won't it be Konstantinos "KILLKILLKILLKILLICONS" V in the driver's seat at that time?

 

[Dachs]

A pope coerced into breaking icons would be similarly coerced into kissing them etc. when the Byzantines realize how dumb the idea is like they did in OTL.

 

[das]

Feh. Is it inside the bounds of the Empire?

No.

Assuming, of course, that the Byzantine government at the time wants anything to do with Italy...

Did it ever completely ignore Italy, while it was still there?

Interesting though an Iconoclastic Christianity might have been (for the record, I don't think it's spread would've been as crippled as you imply; Islam spread among the illiterate Turks and such just fine, after all), I agree that it likely wouldn't have lasted; if anything, a closer alliance with the Pope would've probably worked both ways, with the Pope being able to bring about an earlier end to the Iconoclasm.

Ultimately, though, when all the inevitable power struggles are done, we might get a literally Caesaropapist and unified Christendom, which would be pretty neat. There would be lots of issues to work out, though, including the language (is it too late for a Greek-speaking Europe? Or do we get a more Latin-speaking Byzantine Empire instead by turning its attentions westwards?), the speed of spread and the various oppositions (Celtic Christianity might or might not play a role, and in any case I'm sure that not all the Western Christian rulers would be happy a Greek-controlled Church).

In any case, a more Eurocentric and prestigious Byzantine Empire seems a natural consequence of a no Charlemagne PoD, don't you think?

 

[Dachs]

No.

Hungary, then?

Did it ever completely ignore Italy, while it was still there?

It didn't, depressingly.

(for the record, I don't think it's spread would've been as crippled as you imply; Islam spread among the illiterate Turks and such just fine, after all)

I was more focusing on the near-total lack of support the policy had among the civil-religious bureaucracy and the fact that it was imposed from the top down and thus had no real roots. All you need to kill Iconoclasm is an Emperor or two to say "nah this is stupid, screw it", was what I was thinking about.

Interesting though an Iconoclastic Christianity might have been, I agree that it likely wouldn't have lasted; if anything, a closer alliance with the Pope would've probably worked both ways, with the Pope being able to bring about an earlier end to the Iconoclasm.

Good point. But again: closer alliance with the Pope? Mechanics here being...? If you want to get Konstantinos interested in Italy you'll probably need to butterfly away some of the revolts in the caliphate. Delay Marwan II's defeat and death for a few years so the Emperor doesn't get the temptation to sack Melitene, which combined with his post-raid resettlement operations took up a good chunk of the year of 751.

Ultimately, though, when all the inevitable power struggles are done, we might get a literally Caesaropapist and unified Christendom, which would be pretty neat. There would be lots of issues to work out, though, including the language (is it too late for a Greek-speaking Europe? Or do we get a more Latin-speaking Byzantine Empire instead by turning its attentions westwards?), the speed of spread and the various oppositions (Celtic Christianity might or might not play a role, and in any case I'm sure that not all the Western Christian rulers would be happy a Greek-controlled Church).

In any case, a more Eurocentric and prestigious Byzantine Empire seems a natural consequence of a no Charlemagne PoD, don't you think?

It does, which is pretty cool. Going to have interesting effects on the Balkans, too, with Eirene and Nikephoros in OTL settling the region only a coupla decades later - hell I dunno why nobody did it before them, it seems like the natural thing to do - and at the rate of Nikephoros I's colonization and conquests before that rather embarrassing disaster in 811, they probably would've been able to resettle back up to the Danube by 850 or so. Woo demographics.

I dunno how the whole Christianity thing would work out, though. From what I know the Pope before the Donation of Pepin was kind of a hands-off guy in relation to running the Western Church insofar as it existed, and played more within the Byzantine system and state, barring the occasional missionary and bishop dispute. Then Konstantinos takes away his south Italian jurisdiction, the Lombards invade, and suddenly there's no real reason to fart around with the Greeks. So maybe the Western Christian people wouldn't really notice all that much of a change compared to OTL pre-Carolingian Europe?

And the language, well, I doubt we'll be seeing Latin-speaking Byzantines any time soon. Leon III has already put out the Ekloga epitome of Justinian's code because almost nobody can read the original, remember?

 

[das]

Hungary, then?

No!

I was more focusing on the near-total lack of support the policy had among the civil-religious bureaucracy and the fact that it was imposed from the top down and thus had no real roots. All you need to kill Iconoclasm is an Emperor or two to say "nah this is stupid, screw it", was what I was thinking about.

Well, yeah. But had it (Iconoclastic Christianity) ever come to being, obviously under different circumstances, it would've spread just fine. Maybe a bit slower than OTL Christianity, but not by all that much. Icons were important, but not irreplaceably so.

Good point. But again: closer alliance with the Pope? Mechanics here being...? If you want to get Konstantinos interested in Italy you'll probably need to butterfly away some of the revolts in the caliphate. Delay Marwan II's defeat and death for a few years so the Emperor doesn't get the temptation to sack Melitene, which combined with his post-raid resettlement operations took up a good chunk of the year of 751.

Maybe, but then maybe it could be done a bit later. No need to hurry, the Pope is going to be kicked around by Lombards and Arabs for a few decades, then he will ally with the Emperor when he is ready to turn west.

Mind, I do probably need to brush up on the politics of the period again.

I dunno how the whole Christianity thing would work out, though. From what I know the Pope before the Donation of Pepin was kind of a hands-off guy in relation to running the Western Church insofar as it existed, and played more within the Byzantine system and state, barring the occasional missionary and bishop dispute. Then Konstantinos takes away his south Italian jurisdiction, the Lombards invade, and suddenly there's no real reason to fart around with the Greeks. So maybe the Western Christian people wouldn't really notice all that much of a change compared to OTL pre-Carolingian Europe?

Again, at first they won't, but when the Western monarchs and their courts do more or less inevitably start clashing with Papal authority, the "he's a Greek puppet!" issue is going to become very relevant. In any case, a closer integration of the Church "within the Byzantine system" is interesting in its own right.

And the language, well, I doubt we'll be seeing Latin-speaking Byzantines any time soon. Leon III has already put out the Ekloga epitome of Justinian's code because almost nobody can read the original, remember?

I thought it still was pretty big (or at least known and sometimes used) amongst the intellectual elite? Here it would be a bit more popular. I agree that making it the popular or even the government language is a lost cause, which might be for the best.

 

[Dachs]

No!

Well, the only thing that's left is the Scandies.

Well, yeah. But had it (Iconoclastic Christianity) ever come to being, obviously under different circumstances, it would've spread just fine. Maybe a bit slower than OTL Christianity, but not by all that much. Icons were important, but not irreplaceably so.

Well, yeah, the idea in and of itself that icon veneration is probably a bit too much wasn't a terrible or inherently unworkable one. Just the manner of its imposition as it was done.

Maybe, but then maybe it could be done a bit later. No need to hurry, the Pope is going to be kicked around by Lombards and Arabs for a few decades, then he will ally with the Emperor when he is ready to turn west.

Mind, I do probably need to brush up on the politics of the period again.

Hum, okay. Konstantinos V might be cool with a western intervention anyway, you know; the 'Abbasid fitna means he doesn't really have to guard his frontiers, and he's just created the tagmata so he has the ability to go into Italy anyway. Even allowing for the usual butterflies for changing something in the 740s or so If we drag it out a bit longer we'll run into problems with the 'Abbasid golden age. During the OTL reign of, say, Eirene, there's no chance in hell of the Empire launching a large-scale Italian intervention, what with the gigantic raid right at the start of her regency and then the constant other ones even during tributary periods.

Since we might as well start fleshing the PoD out a bit more, how about Odilo of Bavaria not dying during his bid to split the Frankish state by supporting Grifo? I kinda brought this up almost two years ago in the last thread, but mostly as a bid to keep the Lombards alive (you suggested keeping Carloman alive in the 770s almost-civil war). Civil war kicks off (starting in 747), meanwhile the Lombards try their intervention, and the Pope is forced to pay tribute. Two years later Konstantinos is shopping for theological supporters of his new strict iconoclastic policy, the Pope sells his soul to get rid of Aistulf, Konstantinos sails over with his new tagmata and some thematic troops from the more westerly territories, bada bing bada boom the Lombards are chased out and the Byzantines plant some new themes in central Italy. Maybe they clear out the southern Lombard duchies then, probably they just make some progress and finish the job a few decades later. Beginning of new imperial focus on the west, restriction of eastern activities more or less to resisting raids and launching the odd raid of their own to grab settlers for Thrace, Greece, and the Balkans. Maybe a slightly slower 'Abbasid decline because they won't have to farm out the military jobs to semi-independent provincial commanders so much without as regular of a Byzantine threat, but overall problems of size and the disconnection between state and provincial society remain extant there, plus whoo Khurasan rebels.

Again, at first they won't, but when the Western monarchs and their courts do more or less inevitably start clashing with Papal authority, the "he's a Greek puppet!" issue is going to become very relevant.

Point. You're thinking further ahead than I usually do. (It shows, doesn't it?)

In any case, a closer integration of the Church "within the Byzantine system" is interesting in its own right.

Especially how they solve the issue of having two patriarchs now.

I thought it still was pretty big (or at least known and sometimes used) amongst the intellectual elite?

Nah. Never mind the very shrunken size of that intellectual elite - all of the old Roman senatorial and decurial families dying off or ceasing to use their names, end of the imperial law schooling system, evidence of stuff like the Quinisext Council's condemnation of book-burning - it took a "few expert officials" to distill the Ekloga "with difficulty" in 726, and the few literary manuscripts that were copied during the period (until the revival anyway) were usually in Greek. In the Ekloga's introduction Leon III whined about how few of his bureaucrats understood the laws (this being both a Latin comprehension and a schooling issue). Mah boiiiii Treadgold sez that "knowledge of Latin in the bureaucracy became limited to the few scribes and interpreters needed to conduct diplomatic relations with the Pope and the Lombards and Franks". Anyhow, the few people who were somewhat familiar with Latin aren't going to be spearheading a revival of the tongue anytime soon.

Here it would be a bit more popular. I agree that making it the popular or even the government language is a lost cause, which might be for the best.

Probably. There are still enough Greeks left in South Italy to make a Greek-speaking Italy at least somewhat viable, on the other hand...:3

 

[das]

Well, the only thing that's left is the Scandies.

And yet, it's not them either! This looks like a dead-end, I guess.

Unless... No, how likely is it that there is perhaps something to the east of Poland, anyway? I mean, it's already pretty deep in Eastern Europe, as we all know.

Also, I gave a pretty big hint when restarting this discussion.

Especially how they solve the issue of having two patriarchs now.

Yeah, that's going to take them some time. Still, there can be only one.

Probably. There are still enough Greeks left in South Italy to make a Greek-speaking Italy at least somewhat viable, on the other hand...:3

So why not have Greek gradually supplant Latin elsewhere as well?

I'll try and contribute some more to the main timeline discussion a bit later. The PoD seems sound. Do we have Grifo win in the end, weakening the Franks further due to his shaky and uncertain political positon?

 

[Dachs]

And yet, it's not them either! This looks like a dead-end, I guess.

Unless... No, how likely is it that there is perhaps something to the east of Poland, anyway? I mean, it's already pretty deep in Eastern Europe, as we all know.

Also, I gave a pretty big hint when restarting this discussion.

But that's not close to the Czechs! You can't blame me for being this addled, I hadn't eaten in three days. Besides, I don't know all that much about Galicia-Volhynia, and certainly not all that much about the manner in which Rurikid control of the state ended. I dunno, did the Lithuanians get all of it in the inheritance or something? That'd draw them east like I originally thought they were doing seventy-ish years later, in any event.

It's good to be able to add you to the roster of "Poland is in Eastern Europe" people, too.

Yeah, that's going to take them some time. Still, there can be only one.

I demand the repopularization of the term "outemperor" with its new associate, "outpatriarch"!

So why not have Greek gradually supplant Latin elsewhere as well?

Dunno, sounds good to me on the face of it. Maybe Bill3000 could flesh it out or raise some objections, I hear he's acquainted with linguistics. I mean, it's not as though anybody really spoke Greek in central and northern Italy before, though...

I'll try and contribute some more to the main timeline discussion a bit later. The PoD seems sound. Do we have Grifo win in the end, weakening the Franks further due to his shaky and uncertain political positon?

Sure. Maybe a new round of rebellions a few years into his personal reign, too, so we can spin off a few more semiindependent or independent territories, as is usually attendant upon a Pippinid grasping for ultimate power in Francia. What'd really be kinda neat would be confining the Francian state to a Neustrian core as the rest centrifugally sails away, because if we're going to dispense with any idea of "Germany" we might as well do the same for "France" too.

Any ideas on the Pannonian plain? If the Byzantines are going to refocus on their western domains and push hard against the Bulgarians and the various other Sklaviniai, the First Bulgarian state might get a little...truncated. If the Avars aren't going to be hit as hard by a seriously weakened Francia as they were in OTL, maybe the khaganate will last a bit longer. And then because I enjoy these sorts of things, the Magyars can end up in Wallachia and the lower Danube valley, hijack what's left of the Bulgarian state, and lead a glorious revival a la the Kometopouloi! That'd probably work better if Wallachia were more geographically suitable to maintaining a large horse-based society.

 

[das]

But that's not close to the Czechs!

Unlike Scandinavia?

I dunno, did the Lithuanians get all of it in the inheritance or something?

More or less. The circumstances - and the outcome - here were rather difficult from OTL, though, plus it happened later: the Romanovichi held out for longer in this world, and generally did better, which was the main premise, though not the PoD itself. Ruthenia, the kingdom they founded, then was ruled by the Gediminids for some time, but later still broke away due to stronger local political institutions established over the later Romanovichi rule and various other circumstances, and is now ruled by a completely unrelated Rurikid dynasty, because those are dime a dozen. Hence uber-Galicia, aka the Kingdom of Ruthenia, as per the original bargain with the Pope ofcourse.

I mean, it's not as though anybody really spoke Greek in central and northern Italy before, though...

I was thinking more of supplanting Latin as an elite intellectual language. It sure would simplify things to have all of that scientific and philosophical terminology in Greek, don't you think? As for Italy, well, at any rate a more Greek-influenced Italian language should be a possibility pretty much inevitable under the circumstances. Italian as a dialect of Greek is more difficult, yes.

because if we're going to dispense with any idea of "Germany" we might as well do the same for "France" too.

I don't really mind, but we'll have to replace it with something, and Gaul seems likely to become united in some way or another, even though it's not a certainty by any means. Maybe a Greater Aquitaine in center and south, with petty Frankish, Norse and Breton states to the north? Maybe even a reverse Norman Conquest with Anglo-Saxons conquering and influencing northern Gaul?

We should also not forget the goal of making Bavaria great. Personal union with the Lombards once the Byzantines start pummeling them?

That'd probably work better if Wallachia were more geographically suitable to maintaining a large horse-based society.

I'm sure it's not that bad. Cumans did well enough, from what I recall, and they can always conquer the eastern Pannonian Plain.

Speaking of which, we still have the longer-living Avars and whatnot to deal with. Will Great Moravia even exist, and what will the implications for Slavic languages and religion be? Might the "Vladimiran reform of paganism" that Soviet authors were so fond of pointing out actually last for at least a century?

 

[Dachs]

Unlike Scandinavia?

shhhhhh

More or less. The circumstances - and the outcome - here were rather difficult from OTL, though, plus it happened later: the Romanovichi held out for longer in this world, and generally did better, which was the main premise, though not the PoD itself. Ruthenia, the kingdom they founded, then was ruled by the Gediminids for some time, but later still broke away due to stronger local political institutions established over the later Romanovichi rule and various other circumstances, and is now ruled by a completely unrelated Rurikid dynasty, because those are dime a dozen. Hence uber-Galicia, aka the Kingdom of Ruthenia, as per the original bargain with the Pope ofcourse.

So I still don't have the actual PoD. Did the Romanovichi not have such a high propensity to die off, then? It's not thirteenth century so that puts it after whatsisface, Lev, right?

I was thinking more of supplanting Latin as an elite intellectual language. It sure would simplify things to have all of that scientific and philosophical terminology in Greek, don't you think? As for Italy, well, at any rate a more Greek-influenced Italian language should be a possibility pretty much inevitable under the circumstances. Italian as a dialect of Greek is more difficult, yes.

Fair enough.

I don't really mind, but we'll have to replace it with something, and Gaul seems likely to become united in some way or another, even though it's not a certainty by any means. Maybe a Greater Aquitaine in center and south, with petty Frankish, Norse and Breton states to the north? Maybe even a reverse Norman Conquest with Anglo-Saxons conquering and influencing northern Gaul?

, yeah! Oh, the economic devastation and dislocation that will result when we wipe out the political unity of the only real industrial zone in Western Europe...

We should also not forget the goal of making Bavaria great. Personal union with the Lombards once the Byzantines start pummeling them?

Why not? They're both Agilolfing after all, IIRC. Ought to be pretty easy to finagle it. Though I doubt it'll last very long, it won't be easy to hold territory on both sides of the Alps...

I'm sure it's not that bad. Cumans did well enough, from what I recall, and they can always conquer the eastern Pannonian Plain.

That's true. And they always have access to the southern Ukraine fairly easily from Wallachia.

Speaking of which, we still have the longer-living Avars and whatnot to deal with. Will Great Moravia even exist, and what will the implications for Slavic languages and religion be? Might the "Vladimiran reform of paganism" that Soviet authors were so fond of pointing out actually last for at least a century?

Ugh, Great Moravia. I'm so badly in the dark here that I wouldn't be able to tell. I expect that without a dying Avar khaganate to take advantage of so easily, the Moravians won't be nearly so successful as they were OTL - weren't they being propped up by Bavarian arms at some point, or was that just near the end, against the Magyars? - but anything more specific than that, or cultural stuff, you're asking the wrong guy. Though I suppose it won't be a battleground for Western and Eastern missionaries this time around.

 

[das]

It's not thirteenth century

Actually, it is. I suppose I could've made it clearer that it's closer to your guess in time rather than in space, but meh.

Ugh, Great Moravia. I'm so badly in the dark here that I wouldn't be able to tell. I expect that without a dying Avar khaganate to take advantage of so easily, the Moravians won't be nearly so successful as they were OTL - weren't they being propped up by Bavarian arms at some point, or was that just near the end, against the Magyars? - but anything more specific than that, or cultural stuff, you're asking the wrong guy. Though I suppose it won't be a battleground for Western and Eastern missionaries this time around.

Well, yeah, Moravia might not come about in the first place and even if and when it does it still will be much weaker than in OTL. That should change the whole history of missionary efforts in the Slavic world quite a lot, since Moravia was even more important than Bulgaria as a conductor of Christendom - even aside from SS Cyril and Methodius and their OTL efforts there that were key to their cultural legacy, Moravia also influenced Poland politically. And we're destroying/relocating Bulgaria as well, so it won't provide an early link between Byzantine and Russian cultures as it did in OTL either. The Christianisation of Eastern Europe, if any, will come later and rather more slowly.

Again, makes good sense in a world where the Byzantines are looking more to the west and have a bit more hard power to use in the east instead of relying more on influence and manipulation there.

 

[Dachs]

Actually, it is. I suppose I could've made it clearer that it's closer to your guess in time rather than in space, but meh.

Then it is Lev? Not failing so hard against the Poles and Lithuanians?

Well, yeah, Moravia might not come about in the first place and even if and when it does it still will be much weaker than in OTL. That should change the whole history of missionary efforts in the Slavic world quite a lot, since Moravia was even more important than Bulgaria as a conductor of Christendom - even aside from SS Cyril and Methodius and their OTL efforts there that were key to their cultural legacy, Moravia also influenced Poland politically. And we're destroying/relocating Bulgaria as well, so it won't provide an early link between Byzantine and Russian cultures as it did in OTL either. The Christianisation of Eastern Europe, if any, will come later and rather more slowly.

Again, makes good sense in a world where the Byzantines are looking more to the west and have a bit more hard power to use in the east instead of relying more on influence and manipulation there.

"If any" Christianization? So this "Vladimiran reformed" paganism would be replacing it? I can't imagine Islam would make any great strides instead...

Do you think the reconquista will be unduly affected by the probable diversion of Francian/Aquitanian efforts inward and away from the OTL Spanish March? Think Cordoba can survive somehow or will its Visigoth-inherited decentralization problems persist in destroying it anyway as per OTL?

 

[das]

Then it is Lev? Not failing so hard against the Poles and Lithuanians?

No. But this is even closer than before (in time, the space is right on).

So this "Vladimiran reformed" paganism would be replacing it?

Presumably. Then again, I suspect that he and his descendants would've reformed it further given time. Though, it's a pretty basic state pantheon deal when you get down to it; not sure if they could or would refine it to anything more interesting.

I can't imagine Islam would make any great strides instead...

Agreed; ditto Judaism (or is it?).

Do you think the reconquista will be unduly affected by the probable diversion of Francian/Aquitanian efforts inward and away from the OTL Spanish March? Think Cordoba can survive somehow or will its Visigoth-inherited decentralization problems persist in destroying it anyway as per OTL?

Hard to escape from those. However, a lesser (or even not so much lesser) Andalusia might very well survive, if under different rule. That said, I'm not completely sure whether the Franks helped the local Christians more than they impeded them, directly and indirectly.

 

[Dachs]

No. But this is even closer than before (in time, the space is right on).

Feh. I dunno mang, was it before Lev then?

Presumably. Then again, I suspect that he and his descendants would've reformed it further given time. Though, it's a pretty basic state pantheon deal when you get down to it; not sure if they could or would refine it to anything more interesting.

Oooh, does it include Chernobog?

Agreed; ditto Judaism (or is it?).

I dunno if we can stop the Khazars from getting pwned...

Hard to escape from those. However, a lesser (or even not so much lesser) Andalusia might very well survive, if under different rule. That said, I'm not completely sure whether the Franks helped the local Christians more than they impeded them, directly and indirectly.

So you think that the peninsula could be in equilibrium even if the Christians capture, say, Toledo?

You mentioned Anglo-Saxons in northern France. Would no Carolingian state have a strong impact on Anglian development and the Norsemen?

 

[das]

Feh. I dunno mang, was it before Lev then?

Yeesss...

Oooh, does it include Chernobog?

Sadly, no. Mostly Perun, a mix of Thor and Zeus, and lots of others for a more or less standard package. There still is human sacrifice, though (if anything, the practice seems to have undergone a revival in this time).

I dunno if we can stop the Khazars from getting pwned...

We can replace them.

So you think that the peninsula could be in equilibrium even if the Christians capture, say, Toledo?

Well, Grenada at least certainly held out for long; given a different situation and a slower, weaker Reconquista, it could've held out much longer. The southern one-third of Iberia is also feasible given the right circumstances, though I'm less sure. I also doubt that there would be much of a glorious revival after the Berbers (almost inevitably) take over.

You mentioned Anglo-Saxons in northern France. Would no Carolingian state have a strong impact on Anglian development and the Norsemen?

Probably would. I was wondering about where all those Normans should go, by the way. Maybe have them avoid Gaul and hire out to the Byzantines en masse (err, en even larger masse that is) for the purposes of war in the east? Then break away to establish militant little buffer states in Syria and Armenia?

 

[Dachs]

Yeesss...

Dude, I toles you, I'm not that familiar with Galicia-Volhynia. Is it way earlier, like back when Roman got himself killed?

Sadly, no. Mostly Perun, a mix of Thor and Zeus, and lots of others for a more or less standard package. There still is human sacrifice, though (if anything, the practice seems to have undergone a revival in this time).

That's sexy.

We can replace them.

Were the Pechenegs and Qypchaq all that interested in Judaism, though?

Well, Grenada at least certainly held out for long; given a different situation and a slower, weaker Reconquista, it could've held out much longer. The southern one-third of Iberia is also feasible given the right circumstances, though I'm less sure. I also doubt that there would be much of a glorious revival after the Berbers (almost inevitably) take over.

They ruin everything they touch, the Berbers do...

Probably would. I was wondering about where all those Normans should go, by the way. Maybe have them avoid Gaul and hire out to the Byzantines en masse (err, en even larger masse that is) for the purposes of war in the east? Then break away to establish militant little buffer states in Syria and Armenia?

Considering the predilection for the ones that were around to establish Armenian and Syrian breakaway states in OTL - Russell of Baillieul and Crispin (not to mention that Bohemund guy), I'm looking at you - that sounds eminently possible. Assuming, of course, the Byzantines even start to evince a desire for mercenaries without the Eastern expansionism of the tenth century Emperors...:3

 

[das]

Dude, I toles you, I'm not that familiar with Galicia-Volhynia. Is it way earlier, like back when Roman got himself killed?

Sorry, those persistent near-misses are just too funny to pass up. No, it's closer than that.

Were the Pechenegs and Qypchaq all that interested in Judaism, though?

Don't know, but it wouldn't be much crazier than the Khazars... That said, I was talking about Judaistic or Judaism-influenced Russia, an idea that shows up suspiciously often on Russian alternate history sites. It's more than a long shot, but if we don't go with either Christianity getting there anyway or Slavic paganism surviving in the long-term, Jews in Kiev are one of the first alternatives that occurs.

Assuming, of course, the Byzantines even start to evince a desire for mercenaries without the Eastern expansionism of the tenth century Emperors...

Can the Byzantines really ignore the East, ever? While the core idea here is to have them focus more to the west, I think they're bound to start some opportunistic stuff in the east anyway, and sending all those surplus Normans that might otherwise stir up trouble in the empire or, if added into the Varangian Guard, would get drunk, make emperors and otherwise terrorise the capital sounds like the Greek thing to do.

 

[Dachs]

Sorry, those persistent near-misses are just too funny to pass up. No, it's closer than that.

Yeesh. I dunno, something about the Papal recognition or the Mongols/Horde?

Don't know, but it wouldn't be much crazier than the Khazars... That said, I was talking about Judaistic or Judaism-influenced Russia, an idea that shows up suspiciously often on Russian alternate history sites. It's more than a long shot, but if we don't go with either Christianity getting there anyway or Slavic paganism surviving in the long-term, Jews in Kiev are one of the first alternatives that occurs.

It would be amusing, that's for damn sure. Weren't there some Jews in Central Asia, too? Madcap linkup possibilities...

Can the Byzantines really ignore the East, ever? While the core idea here is to have them focus more to the west, I think they're bound to start some opportunistic stuff in the east anyway, and sending all those surplus Normans that might otherwise stir up trouble in the empire or, if added into the Varangian Guard, would get drunk, make emperors and otherwise terrorise the capital sounds like the Greek thing to do.

Well, IMHO after Leon VI and Romanos I or so, the frontier was stable either way, except for Cilicia. And after you get the kind of expansion Basileios II did, the thematic system kinda becomes unwieldy, since the further-back themes are no longer suffering from raiding, are getting called up for service less often, and are thus less interested in meeting their service requirements without more compensation. In the event, the thematic demobilization was extremely badly mismanaged by the administrations of Konstantinos X and later, hence the increasing reliance on mercenaries and absurd reduction in manpower for the army despite losing no territory. But if they stop at, say, Cilicia and the Taurus range, raiding will still happen and there won't be the late Mak dynasty manpower glut, and mercenaries probably won't even be a factor. Is how I see it, anyway.

 

[das]

Yeesh. I dunno, something about the Papal recognition or the Mongols/Horde?

The former is very nearly it. Yeah, it has to do with Papal-Galician relations under Daniel.

As to the Normans, well, maybe, but they still have to go somewhere. Any other ideas?