What if a strong Byzantine Empire survived to the 20th century?

[caketastydelish]

Would a 'strong' Byzantine empire in the 20th century be able to turn the tide in WW1, unlike the Ottoman turks? Would they even side with the central powers? This is what I'm mostly curious about.

 

[Domen]

What would be the borders of this Byzantine Empire? With Anatolia or without? What about Balkans?

 

[Luckymoose]

No way, Orthodox is surrounded by Catholics and Sunnis, that is far beyond savable condition.

If converted to Catholics, it is equal to Latin Empire; Sunnis Ottoman Empire.

 

[Wrymouth3]

What would be the borders of this Byzantine Empire? With Anatolia or without? What about Balkans?

All the way to the Oder-Neisse Line.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Would a 'strong' Byzantine empire in the 20th century be able to turn the tide in WW1, unlike the Ottoman turks? Would they even side with the central powers? This is what I'm mostly curious about.

What could possibly make you think WWI would continue as in OTL with the presence of a "strong" Byzantine Empire?

 

[Dachs]

What could possibly make you think WWI would continue as in OTL with the presence of a "strong" Byzantine Empire?

yeah its not like the first world war was caused by the destruction of the ottoman empire in europe or anything like that

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm surprised that we haven't yet had anybody insisting that the Kingdom of Greece was, in fact, the Byzantine Empire-born-again. Usually how these sort of nat-bait threads turn out.

 

[Domen]

I'm surprised that we haven't yet had anybody insisting that the Kingdom of Greece was, in fact, the Byzantine Empire-born-again.

Well I think it is so obvious that nobody needs to write this.

Luckymoose:

Posting a map showing the modern distribution of religions is not exactly relevant when we are discussing a Medieval state.

In the Middle Ages the distribution of religions was - in some parts of Europe at least - different than today.

In an alternative reality - in which the Byzantine Empire survives to our times - it would have been different than it is today.

 

[Antilogic]

I think one of the most major influences a longer lasting Byzantine empire would have on the world would be on Russia.

After converting the Orthodoxy the early Russian people and rulers looked up to The Byzantine empire and Constantinople with great respect and reverence.

What I'm getting at here is that i don't think there would have been a major Communist movement in Russia (or at least not as major a the one that happened) because they would be looking to be more like the Byzantines.

Now I'm not saying the Russians would be all Byzantine-Like all the time, because Peter The Great, and Catherine The Great were extremely interested in westernizing the fledgling empire, but i do think that modern Russia would have turned out differently with a continuing influence by the Byzantines who they truly revered.

I'm not getting how the existence of the East Roman Empire into the 20th century prevents or at least ameliorates the massive social pressures that led to the 1917 Russian Revolution.

yeah its not like the first world war was caused by the destruction of the ottoman empire in europe or anything like that

I'm surprised that we haven't yet had anybody insisting that the Kingdom of Greece was, in fact, the Byzantine Empire-born-again. Usually how these sort of nat-bait threads turn out.

On this line of argument, might a likely end result be a very similar division as to what we have today (Greece and Turkey as separate nations), but with the western coast of Anatolia and Constantinopolis under the Greek flag?

 

[Domen]

I suppose nationalism would become a major factor in the Byzantine Empire, like it did in the Ottoman Empire in reality.

I'm not sure how accurate this map is for the area in question, but I post a fragment of a map "Languages of Europe by the end of the 15th century".

So it shows linguistic situation in former Byzantine areas around the time of the Fall of Constantinople (most of Anatolia is already Turkish-speaking).

Bronze color = territory with majority of Greeks / Greek-speakers - Greek was spoken mostly along the coasts as it seems:



Legend:



I'm not sure how accurate this map is for Albanians. Serbian historians say, that Albanisation of Kosovo started only during the 1690s.

And this map seems to suggest, that Kosovo was already mostly Albanian-speaking by the end of the 1400s.

So pay attention to the fact that this map may be inaccurate in some areas - if you think you know what is wrong in it, you can tell me.

 

[LamaGT]

I suppose nationalism would become a major factor in the Byzantine Empire, like it did in the Ottoman Empire in reality.

I'm not sure how accurate this map is for the area in question, but I post a fragment of a map "Languages of Europe by the end of the 15th century".

So it shows linguistic situation in former Byzantine areas around the time of the Fall of Constantinople (most of Anatolia is already Turkish-speaking).

Bronze color = territory with majority of Greeks / Greek-speakers - Greek was spoken mostly along the coasts as it seems:



Legend:



I'm not sure how accurate this map is for Albanians. Serbian historians say, that Albanisation of Kosovo started only during the 1690s.

And this map seems to suggest, that Kosovo was already mostly Albanian-speaking by the end of the 1400s.

So pay attention to the fact that this map may be inaccurate in some areas - if you think you know what is wrong in it, you can tell me.

Well apparently in 1500 all of what would become Novorossiya was already thoroughly Russian. Makes me think why those suckers wasted resources on populating it

 

[Domen]

No! - these are Tatar-speaking and Circassian-speaking territories.

I know - you could be confused by similar color... But it is not the same color!

You can't compare because this fragment of a map actually doesn't have any Russian-speaking territories.

There is a name "Czerkiesi" and "Tatarzy" (even though only "Ta..." can be seen in this fragment).

 

[History_Buff]

I'm surprised that we haven't yet had anybody insisting that the Kingdom of Greece was, in fact, the Byzantine Empire-born-again. Usually how these sort of nat-bait threads turn out.

Greeks are too busy trying to claim the mantle of Alexander the Great for that.

 

[Traitorfish]

I've learned not to under-estimate the willingness of nationalists to wear multiple, even conflicting hats. Look at all the British nationalists who see themselves as as simultaneous heirs to Boudica and Hengist.

 

[Domen]

Look at all the British nationalists who see themselves as as simultaneous heirs to Boudica and Hengist.

Associating yourself with some fragment of the heritage of the past is not bad, as long as you don't deny such right for others.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm surprised that we haven't yet had anybody insisting that the Kingdom of Greece was, in fact, the Byzantine Empire-born-again. Usually how these sort of nat-bait threads turn out.

Uh, cause it wasn't? The kingdom which in effect was officially an entity in the late 1820s was not a successor of the Byzantine Empire, despite many of the rebels fighting being indeed involved in the idea of Romanity. The original aim of the revolution was indeed to resurrect the Byzantine Empire, in the Balkans, which is why there was a considerable part of it going on in Romania as well (where the Principalities were often ruled by wealthy Greeks of Constantinople).

Obviously the actual result of the revolution, the liberation of Morea and Attica along with Boetia and some smaller other areas, was not seen as a resurrection of the old Empire.
However, at 1920, it was a whole different idea, cause then even official currency was released with the bicephal eagle. So if the campaign had ended differently, it is pretty certain the state would now declare itself a resurrected form of the Byzantine Empire.

 

[Luckymoose]

Well I think it is so obvious that nobody needs to write this.

Luckymoose:

Posting a map showing the modern distribution of religions is not exactly relevant when we are discussing a Medieval state.

In the Middle Ages the distribution of religions was - in some parts of Europe at least - different than today.

In an alternative reality - in which the Byzantine Empire survives to our times - it would have been different than it is today.

I pointed out that his view, and apparently yours, about the untenable position of Orthodoxy is complete horse poo. A thriving Byzantine empire would no more become Catholic or Sunni than Eastern Europe did under less-than-thriving conditions.

 

[Pangur Bán]

What if a strong Byzantine Empire survived to the 20th century?

It did. The Osmanlıs were just the latest dynasty to rule the Rum.

 

[r16]

please no . Whenever the Sunni orientation of New Turkey gets exposed as a fallacy , they come up with how Geostrategic facts make it inevitable that any country placed here must like rule the Middle East .

 

[otaman1]

What if a strong Byzantine Empire survived to the 20th century?

It did. The Osmanlıs were just the latest dynasty to rule the Rum.

The Byzantines weren't mainly Turks. They were mostly Greeks.