Byzantine Republic, attempt two.

[Mathalamus]

removed, for its obvious stupidity.

 

[Ajidica]

its just a place holder until i can find a more unique Romansh name.

Call them the Rhomaioi or whatever the greek term was?

I didn't really look over the timeline, but I noticed something that irked me initialy. Where did Basil II come from? If there had been any competant sucessor they would have been appointed instead of Zoe.
I would recomend using Michael the Paphlagonian (sans the epilepsy), Isaac Comnenus (if he hadn't gotten deposed/quit), or Romanus Diogenus (if the forces at home had been a little less hostile toward him he wouldn't have been so driven to fight the Turks. At least that is the position Norwich takes.)

EDIT: I noticed WWI still takes place in practicaly the same fasion as in the OTL. I'll just wait for Dachs to explain why that is alt-hist fail.

 

[Mathalamus]

the timeline got different at 1023, basil was around, and chose a competent successor to the Byzantine throne.

the comnenus is an interesting idea actually. i completely forgot one existed at that time.

Rhomaioi was considered, but someone else (in an alternate time-line forum somewhere) already took it. im jsut wary of ripping off other peoples work.

 

[Dachs]

Which particular competent successor did you have in mind? There were several alternatives. Konstantinos Dalassenos, for one. Nikephoros Xiphilinos was another possible alternative, but in the 1020s he started a civil war, almost certainly over the succession (Basileios' death was deemed imminent), and was removed from contention. The problem lies in marrying one of these men to Zoe or Theodora before the throne becomes vacant but close enough to Basileios' death to prevent the new husband from using the opportunity to rebel.

Several months ago, I created some reference information for the Byzantine state in the year 1000 and the surrounding years; here are some links. They may be of assistance.

For what it's worth, the Byzantine state in 1000 (certainly in 1025) had somewhere around 50,000 professional troops - the tagmata - and in excess of 100,000 thematic soldiers of variable quality. For a European or Middle Eastern state before the Military Revolution, a 50,000-man standing army is huge.

I also have obvious qualms about your inability to take account of butterflies, and your apparent desire to skip more than a century of very important history in Europe and the Middle East.

 

[Mathalamus]

Which particular competent successor did you have in mind? There were several alternatives. Konstantinos Dalassenos, for one. Nikephoros Xiphilinos was another possible alternative, but in the 1020s he started a civil war, almost certainly over the succession (Basileios' death was deemed imminent), and was removed from contention. The problem lies in marrying one of these men to Zoe or Theodora before the throne becomes vacant but close enough to Basileios' death to prevent the new husband from using the opportunity to rebel.

well what about someone from the comnenos dynasty? they seemed to be a competent bunch of rulers, if a bit misguided in the OTL.

Several months ago, I created some reference information for the Byzantine state in the year 1000 and the surrounding years; here are some links. They may be of assistance.

ill read those immediately.

For what it's worth, the Byzantine state in 1000 (certainly in 1025) had somewhere around 50,000 professional troops - the tagmata - and in excess of 100,000 thematic soldiers of variable quality. For a European or Middle Eastern state before the Military Revolution, a 50,000-man standing army is huge.

whoops. considering the size of the nation, 50,000 regulers and 100,000 irregulars seemed rather small to me. apparently it is huge. eh, it wasn't a problem at that time though.

I also have obvious qualms about your inability to take account of butterflies, and your apparent desire to skip more than a century of very important history in Europe and the Middle East.

i did at least try to make an effort. Scotland and Burgundy replaced England and France respectively. the napoleon is a different person, as is Hitler.

i didnt know enough about the 12thn century to make it plausible. the crusades would have never happened for example. or happened differently.

 

[Dachs]

The Komnenoi were a minor family at the time, and not really in the running, although it is believed that one of the early Komnenoi may have received a military command under Basileios.

 

[Ajidica]

well what about someone from the comnenos dynasty? they seemed to be a competent bunch of rulers, if a bit misguided in the OTL.

If you want to go with Komnenus, I would go with either John spending a little less time in Armenia Cilicia, or Michael spending a bit more time fighting the Turks rather than invading Sicily.

 

[Mathalamus]

The Komnenoi were a minor family at the time, and not really in the running, although it is believed that one of the early Komnenoi may have received a military command under Basileios.

how about someone completely different but was trusted by Basil II? like Nikephoros Ouranos.

If you want to go with Komnenus, I would go with either John spending a little less time in Armenia Cilicia, or Michael spending a bit more time fighting the Turks rather than invading Sicily.

what i can do, is that several non dynastic (competent) emperors can hold the throne, as some sort of very early form of noble-cracy, which would then fail, and the Komnenos would take the throne. as far as i can tell, any person in theory could be an emperor. Basil I himself came from humble origins.

 

[Dachs]

how about someone completely different but was trusted by Basil II? like Nikephoros Ouranos.

Older than Basileios. Possibly already dead in 1025.

what i can do, is that several non dynastic (competent) emperors can hold the throne, as some sort of very early form of noble-cracy, which would then fail, and the Komnenos would take the throne.

How would you ensure competence? Handwave it to create an epic series of awesome like in the tenth century?

as far as i can tell, any person in theory could be an emperor. Basil I himself came from humble origins.

Possibly, yes. Basileios I also entered the army, served in a guard unit, and eventually became its commander. Men like that were rare.

 

[Mathalamus]

Older than Basileios. Possibly already dead in 1025.

all the competent people die early.

How would you ensure competence? Handwave it to create an epic series of awesome like in the tenth century?

they don't all have to be competent or good, they coudl be your average not so great but not so bad Emperors and Empresses. considering that the Seljuk did not invade manzikert (i read in a book that Romanov targeted the Seljuk, not the Fatimid, as he was supposed to.) it woudlent be hard. just stay allied with the Seljuk, keep the state running nice an nice oiled clock, dont lose too much territory, etc. im sure average Emperors can do that.

(note: that obviously means that the Empire sort of stagnates, that is to be expected)

Possibly, yes. Basileios I also entered the army, served in a guard unit, and eventually became its commander. Men like that were rare.

well someone with a rank of strategos can theoretically take the throne for himself.

 

[Dachs]

Mmm. Well, Konstantinos Dalassenos is probably your best bet, like I said.

Also, saying Romanos targeting the Seljuqs turned them away from fighting the Fatimids is colossally oversimplifying things.

 

[Mathalamus]

Mmm. Well, Konstantinos Dalassenos is probably your best bet, like I said.

there's no record of him in Wikipedia. and barely anywhere else. if you meant Constantine X Doukas, then he definitely isn't a good choice. he disbanded most of the Byzantine army.

Also, saying Romanos targeting the Seljuqs turned them away from fighting the Fatimids is colossally oversimplifying things.

well, uh... it says in the grand strategy of the Byzantine Empire that the Seljuk are situational allies. they had a common enemy, the Fatimids. but the Emperor either deliberately chose to attack the Turks, or it was a huge misunderstanding.

 

[Dachs]

No, I mean Konstantinos Dalassenos. It's true that he doesn't come up on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is encyclopedic, not exhaustive. The first hit for his name on Google returns the wrong Konstantinos Dalassenos as well (the one from the Alexiad, who was a descendant of the relevant Konstantinos Dalassenos).

I recommend reading books about the Byzantine Empire around this period. Try Treadgold, Angold, Holmes, and the collection of secondary literature edited by Paul Magdalino. I do not recommend reading Ed Luttwak's book, because it's essentially a popular-history book written by an amateur historian that ignores a lot of modern stuff and secondary literature, and is unsuitable for a record of events. It's thematically organized, and offers a decent companion to Treadgold's and Haldon's works on the Byzantine military, but only a companion.

 

[Mathalamus]

Books about Byzantium in that period is relatively rare, but ill see if i can find some.

 

[Magnificent One]

I consider this better and more realistic to the other Byzantine republic you made. Also,the byzantines simply called themselve "The Roman Empire",or "Imperium Romanum"

 

[Antilogic]

i did at least try to make an effort. Scotland and Burgundy replaced England and France respectively. the napoleon is a different person, as is Hitler.

Part of building up the verisimilitude of an alt-hist or a fantasy world of any type is to try and separate out what is most likely to change via your change versus what is least likely to change via your change.

For example, if the Romans are beaten back to Greece and part of Anatolia, then Crusades to recover Jerusalem still "fits", so to speak. Maybe the Crusades would be directed more towards Muslim activity in North Africa, since that would be the major point of contact between the Catholics and Muslims. One question I have is how the Orthodox Church interacts with the Catholic West. A major bargaining chip that late Roman emperors used to try and get military assistance was to offer to reunite the churches in exchange for Papal assistance, but a resurgent Roman Empire would not be as conciliatory if they had a massive, well-equipped army.

What I imagine are smaller effects are the Roman survival impacting the English succession: how does the Roman Empire surviving cause Scotland to become dominant or result in the Act of Union not happening? Especially since this happens in 1707 historically, when you mention the Romans are fighting the Macedonians? How does the history of Burgundy, France, and Austria change as the result of the Romans still existing? Why would Venice try to "landgrab" the Romans if the Romans were fighting the Mongols, especially when the threat of a Mongolian invasion seems imminent?

I'm somewhat confused by what is going on in the Balkans--it seems like we have an independent Greece, as well as the largely Greek "Roman" Empire with Turkish territories that presumably still have a Turkish majority/minority. And yet these two Greek states seem to beat the tar out of each other for a few centuries. Is the difference solely political? In the modern times, would there be a popular movement for a Pan-Greek nation like there was for a Pan-German and Pan-Slavic nation?

As far as I can tell, the Mongols ravage the Balkans, and then there is a mention of Serbia, and then... ? Could the Romans cut deals with the Bulgarians, Serbians, or Bosnians to keep these Macedonian warhawks in check?

 

[Plotinus]

Yes, this seems a lot more realistic than the first version. I was puzzled by this bit though:

1580: Women were given equal rights when them leadership realized they could effectively double Byzantine productivity by allowing women to pursue jobs they want to have.

This seems a bit odd to me. First, what do you mean by "equal rights"? Second, why would granting "equal rights" be necessary for women to be economically productive? Remember that in the later Middle Ages women had all sorts of jobs, and this was possible without giving them the same rights as men. Third, assuming that these "equal rights" involve more than just the right to work, what about the tremendous social upheavals that this would bring about? Things like this can't be done just by fiat by the government.

 

[Ajidica]

My critique. Please understand I have written no alt-history, but I have thought about it quite a bit.

1023: Basil II named a (competent) successor to the Byzantine throne.

Where did he come from? If there had been any really competant claimants to the throne, why didn't Zoe marry one of them? She was trying to cement her power.

1052: the first standing army was created after an advanced economic system was conceived. the standing army was rather small for a nation that size, just 50,000 people, and a bunch of irregulars.

Huh? The Tagmata was Dachs already pointed out was the Byzantine standing army and was actualy fairly large for the time. This is without all the full-time mercs the Byzantines employed.

Time passes

You need to fill in here. Even without Manzikert and the near collapse, the Byzantines would still have had problems with the Seljuks.

1270: Battle of Manzikert: a large Byzantine force of 20,000 was defeated by 5,000 Mongols. they begin their steady advance to Byzantine Territory, Byzantium builds up the military by conscription of every able bodied men hired a lot of Foreign Mercenaries and enlisted help from Italian city states, and increasing Fortifications. the elite troops were gathered up to defend the core area of Byzantium.

Where did the cash come from? That sort of stuff takes alot of cash. The only way I could see that happening is with the confiscation of Church gold.

1273: Bulgaria was completely destroyed by the mongol hordes. their attempt to reach Constantinople or cut off land access failed miserably.

How did the Mongols reach Bulgaria?

1275: mongol advances were slowed by Byzantine fortifications and they had to use additional men to break through them.

Based on my knowledge, the city defenses for most Byzantine cities were okay, but certiantly not enough to really put a dent in the Mongols. After all, they had conquered China.

1298-1303: Venice, having built up its navy, declared war against Byzantium for more land. Venice was successful. sort of. they got the land they wanted (Adriatic coast and Crete) but was financially crippled. Venice got defeated by the mongols a few years later.

How would the Mongols fight the Venetians in the Adriatic? They might still be in Bulgaria, but then why were all of the Byzantine battles in the east?

1305-1385: Sadly, they lost most of their European holdings. only Bulgaria, Macedon, Albania and Greece was still with Byzantium.

So they basicaly kept all of their European holdings, sans the Balkans.

1389-1432: Byzantium, hoping to avenge the loss of the previous war, declared war against Serbia. the war was long and Bloody. by wars end, Byzantium has being narrowly defeated by Serbia. Both sides were ruined by decades of war. Greece itself was reduced to farmland, with no major cities.

How much land did they loose in Anatolia? Based on what I have read from Treagold and Norwhich, Byzantiums problem was not lack of manpower, but lack of cash. If they still possed Anatolia and the Mongols were static, they should have had enough manpower to hold the line against Serbia.

1472-1503: the Caliphate invaded Byzantium, hoping to finish the job that they failed to do in the 8th century. the invasion was successful, but they made a foolhardy attempt to capture Constantinople. even with gunpowder, which the Arabs had, they still failed to conquer the legendary city. a peace treaty was hammered out. everything west of the Euphrates river was now Arabian territory.

I thought they got curb-stomped by the Mongols? Anyhow, west of the Euphrates? That would include basicaly all remaining Byz land.

1520-1536: Byzantium, seeking to reconquer their lands declared war on Macedon. the result of this 16 year war was a narrow Byzantine victory. they have gained the island of Crete.

Why Crete? There were far better places to target, and Crete had always been a notoriously tough nut to crack for Byzantium.

1560: the new world is Discovered by Burgundy. their attempts to conquer the Aztecs failed.

Why Burgundy? Unless something radicaly changed in Europe, they were more concerned about defeating the French and Swiss.

1600: a modern tax system was conceived and implemented. this greatly increased revenue, which the state then used to fund a Public education and health systems.

A modern tax system is based on income, not land. It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that tax really began to shift away from emphasis on land.

1635: the Previous system of Themes was abolished, and provinces were created out fo the ashes of the Theme system.

Didn't Byzantium basicaly loose all of Anatolia and the Balkans? There wouldn't be that many Themes left to start over with.

1640: all fo the provinces were admitted to the state. the Istanbul province was expanded to 5191 square kilometers, Constantinople proper is designated as a city, while the rest of the area is a metropolitan area of Constantinople.

*Twitch*

1650: Constantinople is the largest city in the world, with 2 million people. it would remain the largest city in the world until the modern ages.

It avoided the plague? Oddly suspicious for a city that was as trade based as Constantinople.

1685: the Industrial age started in Byzantium. due to the isolation and relatively high security, no other country managed to start their own industrialization until 1750, by the Scottish Empire

Right. So a nation that had been engaged in a devestating total war with its neighbors is stable enough and lacking in devestation to have an industrial revolution?

1705-1765: a 60 year process ot democratize the country was undertaken. the implementation was difficult and sometimes, even risky, but in the end it succeeded with minimal issues. it started otu as a noblecracy, and gradually giving rights to more and more people, until the entire population had rights as a citizen.

Why would the nobles want to give up their authority? I can't think of any democratization that didn't have a revolt or two.

1792-1815: the napoleon wars resulted in Burgundy Victories at first, nearly capturing Constantinople, but the citizens fought on and eventually wiped out the French Empire.

Napoleon was Corsican. Did Burgundy conquer Corsica? Furthermore, Nappy only got to power because of the chaos of the Directory. Chances are in a stable state he wouldn't have become Emperor.

1914: World War one: war breaks out when the Russian Emperor was assassinated by Austria-Hungary rebels. Byzantium stays out of the war, citing that it has nothing to gain from either side.

I notice the highly suspicious start date.

WWII

I do love the suspiciously blank Middle Ages and interactions with the Seljuks, but the play-by-play account of WWII.

 

[Mathalamus]

Where did he come from? If there had been any really competant claimants to the throne, why didn't Zoe marry one of them? She was trying to cement her power.

i didn't think i had to name that successor.

Huh? The Tagmata was Dachs already pointed out was the Byzantine standing army and was actualy fairly large for the time. This is without all the full-time mercs the Byzantines employed.

dachs already pointed that out, and i decided that no change was necessary.

You need to fill in here. Even without Manzikert and the near collapse, the Byzantines would still have had problems with the Seljuks.

the worse problem i coudl think of is some border skirmishes, settlement of iran, and a little thorn on Byzantium

Where did the cash come from? That sort of stuff takes alot of cash. The only way I could see that happening is with the confiscation of Church gold.

they bankrupted themselves. thats why they had problems with Venice and Serbia.

How did the Mongols reach Bulgaria?

they wanted to try to reach Constantinople from Europe. in the OTL Mongol raiders were active in Thrace. they just had their border extended jsut enough to reach Bulgaria.

Based on my knowledge, the city defenses for most Byzantine cities were okay, but certiantly not enough to really put a dent in the Mongols. After all, they had conquered China.

as i said, Byzantium bankrupted itself trying to keep back the mongols.

How would the Mongols fight the Venetians in the Adriatic? They might still be in Bulgaria, but then why were all of the Byzantine battles in the east?

the east had the more important holdings of Byzantium. they could, frankly, safely ignore the west to a point.

How much land did they loose in Anatolia? Based on what I have read from Treagold and Norwhich, Byzantiums problem was not lack of manpower, but lack of cash. If they still possed Anatolia and the Mongols were static, they should have had enough manpower to hold the line against Serbia.

they lost pretty much everything East of Ankara. the Byzantines were so busy driving off the mongols that they coudlent deal with serbia as much.

I thought they got curb-stomped by the Mongols? Anyhow, west of the Euphrates? That would include basicaly all remaining Byz land.

whoops, on both counts.

Why Crete? There were far better places to target, and Crete had always been a notoriously tough nut to crack for Byzantium.

err... can you suggest a better place to target that wont cripple Macedonia too early?

Why Burgundy? Unless something radicaly changed in Europe, they were more concerned about defeating the French and Swiss.

i deliberately kept the detail on Byzantium. this is Byzantine alt-history, not European alt-history. honestly, anything could have happend.

Didn't Byzantium basicaly loose all of Anatolia and the Balkans? There wouldn't be that many Themes left to start over with.

they reconquered Anatolia from the mongols. the latter's instability helped.

*Twitch*

whats the problem with that? it was known even to Greeks at the time.

It avoided the plague? Oddly suspicious for a city that was as trade based as Constantinople.

you mean black death? whoops.

Right. So a nation that had been engaged in a devestating total war with its neighbors is stable enough and lacking in devestation to have an industrial revolution?

to be fair, ths was going on for a long time. before the war in fact. they would have had earlier, but factors delayed it.

Why would the nobles want to give up their authority? I can't think of any democratization that didn't have a revolt or two.

why? they have the same amount of authority, and retained it. nobles in Byzantium today still has great power, compared to the middle class.

Napoleon was Corsican. Did Burgundy conquer Corsica? Furthermore, Nappy only got to power because of the chaos of the Directory. Chances are in a stable state he wouldn't have become Emperor.

different Napoleon.

For example, if the Romans are beaten back to Greece and part of Anatolia, then Crusades to recover Jerusalem still "fits", so to speak. Maybe the Crusades would be directed more towards Muslim activity in North Africa, since that would be the major point of contact between the Catholics and Muslims. One question I have is how the Orthodox Church interacts with the Catholic West. A major bargaining chip that late Roman emperors used to try and get military assistance was to offer to reunite the churches in exchange for Papal assistance, but a resurgent Roman Empire would not be as conciliatory if they had a massive, well-equipped army.

the Eastern orthodox church did not interact too much, perferring to do things itself before needing help. and this massive army of 50,000 only works circa 1025. its not that anymore, so its a lot less regulars, but still well equipped. they obviously refused to seek reunification, since the population was hostile towards it.

What I imagine are smaller effects are the Roman survival impacting the English succession: how does the Roman Empire surviving cause Scotland to become dominant or result in the Act of Union not happening? Especially since this happens in 1707 historically, when you mention the Romans are fighting the Macedonians? How does the history of Burgundy, France, and Austria change as the result of the Romans still existing? Why would Venice try to "landgrab" the Romans if the Romans were fighting the Mongols, especially when the threat of a Mongolian invasion seems imminent?

i was once told that even a tiny PoD could affect the entire world.

I'm somewhat confused by what is going on in the Balkans--it seems like we have an independent Greece, as well as the largely Greek "Roman" Empire with Turkish territories that presumably still have a Turkish majority/minority. And yet these two Greek states seem to beat the tar out of each other for a few centuries. Is the difference solely political? In the modern times, would there be a popular movement for a Pan-Greek nation like there was for a Pan-German and Pan-Slavic nation?

that independent Greece came into being when Macedonia got the tar beaten out by Byzantium. the reason for this is that Macedonia wanted Byzantine land, and Byzantium wanted Macedonian land.

there is support for a pan-greek movement, but Greece was under macedonian rule for 519 years, and they won back their independence. they did not want to give it up.

This seems a bit odd to me. First, what do you mean by "equal rights"? Second, why would granting "equal rights" be necessary for women to be economically productive? Remember that in the later Middle Ages women had all sorts of jobs, and this was possible without giving them the same rights as men. Third, assuming that these "equal rights" involve more than just the right to work, what about the tremendous social upheavals that this would bring about? Things like this can't be done just by fiat by the government.

i looked in wikipedia and the women had de-facto equal rights already. that was merely a formality. most of the males obviously understood that giving women an equal right in everything will result in a better life.

EDIT: i edited the time-line, added interactions with the Seljuk Turks. basically they won the battle of manzikert, but declined after Byzantium took konya, and was obliterated by the Byzantine-mongol (temporary, and aganst that foe only) Alliance. this would explain the Turkish minority.

Bulgaria declared independence, and was also obliterated by the mongols, seriously damaging the Byzantine armies as well. the Bulgar people were nearly extinct, and fled to Byzantium. most came back when the Bulgarian state was re-established as a willinh vassal of Byzantium.

and i have one question: do you think the Byzantine republic would be an absolute monarchy or a constitutional monarchy, or a Republic, or a nationalist Dictatorship (or republic)?

 

[Leoreth]

Not going into details, but why do you insist that the Napoleonic Wars or WW2 still happen?

That just creates the impression all you really want is "have Byzantines with tanks".