And because it was such a huge and prosperous city ( at least before 1204) not only it was a really diverse city in terms of people from all places living there but it was the literal Asgard for the Norsemen going down there. Some Norse even recognized bizantine emperors as their political superiors back there and people like Harold Hardrada made themselves famous and rich by serving in the Varangian guard,atracted by the possibilities the city had to offer
In this timeline, the Roman Empire would have the single longest unbroken streak of independence in history Edit: Why tf are people still responding to this comment it has been 3 actual years
Actually depending on which date you take for the start of the Byzantine Empire it would either still be 94 years younger than the Republic of San Marino or if you take 286 when the Roman Empire first divided then it would only be 15 years older.
Arguably it would be around 2,500 years if you go from the founding of the republic. Rome already holds that record if you go from the republic, but now, even if you went from the founding of the empire, it would be the oldedt
The last Emperor of Byzantium, Constantine XI Palaeologus, upon his city being invaded proclaimed "The city is fallen and I am still alive". He then tore off his imperial ornaments so as to let nothing distinguish him from any other soldier and led his remaining men into a last charge where he was killed.
@@arc1t3ct-9 was Alcuin greek? Carolingian renaissance is a thing, look it up. BTW can you guys name at least 5 byzantine philosophers? I'll even help you. Michael Psellos, John Italus, name just three more.
@@hrsmp Alcuin was a Saxon. What makes you think that the Italian Renaissance was in any way influenced by the Saxons? Britain didn't come to prevalence until well after the Norman conquest of 1066... 5 Byzantine Philosophers you say? Here is a list of the 18 most famous: Gemistus Pletho Michael Psellos Theodore Metochites Photios I of Constantinople Gregory Palamas Gennadius Scholarius Nikephoros Blemmydes Michael of Ephesus John Philoponus George Pachymeres Arethas of Caesarea Nicephorus Gregoras Nikephoros Choumnos Maximus the Confessor Simplicius of Cilicia Bessarion Leo the Mathematician George of Trebizond
I am the funniest TH-camr of all time I watched my latest video and laughed for 69 minutes straight I am extremely funny I am dangerously funny and I have two girlfriends who think I am extremely dangerously funny and they watch all of my videos thanks for listening dear 2i
@Shafiqul Alam They would have blocked access to Russia's only warm water port to the outside world. They could have made a bundle taxing Russian imports.
When their capital used to be called Byzantium but isnt anymore, it is an obvious smear from western jealous scholars on the empire since it ended a city state.
They wouldnt be, that is just his opinion, Rome unlike the turks survived for over 2000 years and knew how to adapt to changing times so they would figure it out.
Its possible that if they were more aggressive during the whole protestant reformation battle royale and conquered more land in the Mediterranean they could've became a naval superpower, If they were even more aggressive they could've crippled the latin powers and delayed their exploration and jumpstarted their own.
I do not know if they would seek to follow the old AOE2 spammed message. BUILD A NAVY If they had a deep water navy: they had enough resources to try an exploitation of Africa and the Middle East or the Americas. Perhaps they would discover and Colonize Australia. Who knows. What i Do recognize it the Romans and Bysantines were a Republic. They had an Emperor. The Emperor held massive power and ruled the nation, but they had representatives LOTS of them. I suspect they would end up a bit like Britain. A Parliament of Representatives ruling the nation: with a Ruler 'in charge' of the nation, who had little to actually do with the running of it. I expect France to have a Revolution. And I expect Nepolion deciding to rebuild the Empire of Rome, and have to crush the Byzantines to do it. Only to discover: That corner of Europe has been using horses in novel ways for CENTURIES. Introduce the first Rifle Cavalry of Europe. War of Maneuver, with a strong Centralized command structure.(although how many professional soldiers they would field given the collapse of the Silk Road profits? Who knows.) Pure speculation but: they COULD have retaken Egypt and built a Suez Canal, and with control and power over the Shortcut into Asia, they could make a Fortune of the new Silk Road, made their own Colonial claims, and paid for a navy to RULE the Mediterranean and challenge even the British in the Indian. I would then probably set up commities to manage the Middle East and settle the conflicts as best as I could. Not to end Centuries of hostility. But to create and environment of peace and quiet to keep them from trying to unite, forment rebellion or constantly kill each other. Sit down: shut up, enjoy living WITHOUT killing each other for a while. After all Alexander forged an empire. Oh and the Colossus of Rhodes would still be there. The Turks melted it down and sold it for scrap with their conquest of the area..
@@martinmortyry7444 Yes, but the timing is in line with the launch of CK3 being tomorrow. And that Paradox Interactive have been sponsoring several TH-cam videos lately because of said launch.
@@VenusIsleNews Greeks where never Roman, the Latin Romans were able to assimilate the cultures they conquered, all but the Greek people, as they kinda of influenced the Roman culture themselves. Yeah, they called themselves Roman for a long while and yeah they had Roman emperors until Justinian, but Greek people are far from "Roman"
@@pipebomber04 The two main claims to Russia being the continuation of the Roman Empire are: 1. A Byzantine princess married Ivan the Great while he was Grand Prince of Moscow. He would go on to unite Russia into the Tsardom. His royal family, the Romanovs, were through Ivan's wife direct descendants of the Byzantine emperors. 2. After the fall of Constantinople, the Empire's church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, moved it's center to Moscow, making it the new home of Eastern Roman Christianity. To me, Russia has a much stronger claim to being the heirs to the Roman Empire than the Holy Roman Empire.
@@andrewgreenwood9068 I was pointing out how somone could like byzantium and not be a Byzantophile Byzantophiles like to go on and on about how it was ROMAN and Helenophiles like to go on and on about how it was GREEK.
This make me think of a long running EU4 campaign I played. I was using the extended timeline mod and started in 1060 as the Byzantines. I played that same campaign for 8 months until it was 1880. What I did to keep Byzantium alive was I had deep dynastic connections with Russia. Anytime there was a Russo-Turkish War I jumped in with Russia and push down the Levant's coast till I got to the Sinai. Built some ports in the Red Sea and expanded towards India. Set up some colonies in the Indian Ocean, got involved in some Succession Crises, took some overseas colonies from Portugal, etc. By the end I controlled some Indian princely states, some of East Africa, and had all of Indonesia. By the 1800
If you actually want to experience the timeline, Just start in CK3 (or CK2) and end in VIC2, EU4 don't have the mechanicas for 1300 and earlier or 1750 and later
This makes sense, if the Byzantines got hold of the Suez, they suddenly become a bit more relevant. Yes the Ottoman also held Egypt but they were an Anti-Colonial Power (although not by choice). The Eastern shores of Africa, nearly the entire coast of India to even Indonesia were held by Sunni Islamic States who were allied with the Ottomans and were even helped by the Ottomans in their efforts to repel Portugese and Dutch Colonialism. The only Islamic Kingdom that the Ottomans attacked outside of their De Jure Mediterranean Cores was Persia, but only managed to conquer Iraq. In this alternate timeline, the Romans would have no such Obligation toward the Eastern Islamic Sultanates, their only obligatory ally would be Ethiopia and they would thus be competing against the other Rival Colonial Powers instead of resisting them. If Rome can't conquer to the west, it would go East.
@ELITE EXTREME GAMER people called themselves Romans, some people actually do to this day. Everybody who does is Greek though. The laungage was Greek, most of the emperors were Greek, the main land of the empire was Grecia and finally, the main part of the population were Greeks.
@ELITE EXTREME GAMER Not quite, the empire had succeed at assimilating much the people that came to live it's boarders. Gaul and Hispaniola were considered integral parts of the Empire, the Franks and the Goths were what shifted the demographics and put to the sword vast amounts of Romans. The Franks in fact can be credited with the French language being a mix of the old Gallo Romantic dialect mix with the Germanic of the Franks. The problem in the rich east came with the first black death wiping out 2/3s of the Empire's population and after the Hums and the Slavic nomad invasions. The Empire's vast Roman population it once had in the Balkans was wiped out. The Slavic nomads filled the void they created and shifted the demographics. This is what shifted the Roman Empire's demographics to a mostly multi national empire as the people the Romans had spent millennia assimilating were replaced while the Empire was the weakest it had ever been and could not assimilate them anymore. The st1 black death decided the fate of Eastern Roma, not the people that invaded during what was going to be the reconquest of the west. I will give you Anatolian's ethnic diversity, but the mountainous region meant the eastern sections were boarder lands with the Persian dynasties. Last the consent of nationalities is not a good once since most people never left the villages they lived in or had dialectics utterly incomprehensible without state intervention. The concept of a shared cultural or ethnic identity was prevalent during these time. The biggest reason the Turks had such an easy time taking the last of the Roman Empire was because of the collapse of tolerance that was necessary to run & sustain such an Empire's social structure. The fanaticism and great intolerance of the Christianity faith killed the Empire more so then the invasions of nomads. Remember when bathing and personal hygiene was declared a satanic ritual, think about those late Roman plagues. Or when the Armenians were declared heretics of the christian faith, the Seljuks rolled into the eastern lands easily defeating the two crusades called to defeat them.
@ELITE EXTREME GAMER The byzantine empire started as roman but later became greek.The original roman empire was indeed multicultural,but in the eastern meditterenean where constantinople was located,the greeks were dominant.After the fall of the western part of the empire,the term roman was more a political term than a national term.As I said,the dominant ethnicity in eastern meditterenean were Greeks,so after the fall of the western part,they kept calling themselves as Romans because they thought themselves as the inheritors of the Roman empire and the ones that will continue it,but ethnically were greek.After 610 AD,the greek languege became the main languege of the empire but greek was spoken widely even before that,they even adopted greek customs.Finally,the last emperor of the Byzantines,Konstantinos Palaiologos said in his last speech before the fall of the constantinople by the ottomans,that byzantines are descendants of both Romans and Greeks(look it up if you dont believe me)
The reason the ottoman empire became the 'sick man of Europe' had less to do with their geographical position, and more to do with the fact that they ended up staying the same static, agrarian society, while the rest of the world moved on and industrialized. The Byzantines were far, far more urbanized than the ottomans, and maintained technological and economic superiority over the rest of Europe for almost their entire existence. While their geographical position would lose some of its value as time went on, it wouldn't make their decline inevitable, any more than the much worse geographical positions of countries like russia and germany.
@erick meyer By the time urban came around, the 'empire' was also reduced to Constantinople and moria. They economically stagnated because they were forced to give Venice and Genoa ruinous trading rights in return for their naval assistance. Plus the fourth crusade wrecked Constantinople and the imperial bureaucracy, destroyed the imperial silk monopoly, and led to decades of civil war that ravaged their economic heartland. Until then, the ERE was by far the wealthiest state in all of europe.
@@tgk2343 China was super wealthy and urbanized, they were also technologically, culturally, economically superior to almost all Europeans for most of their existence. And look how they turned out to be during the 19-20th century.
@@허윤형-v7b That was due more to isolationism than anything else, and the geographical distance between them and europe also played a role in their stagnation. The ERE was never isolationist, and would be in constant contact, both militarily and economically, with the rest of Europe. Them falling behind like china did is highly unlikely.
Well yes but no, eventually the Russians and the Austrians also began preying on the Ottomans for control over the Balkans, and so the Byzantines would fall to geographical targeting in the Balkans.
Honestly, I believe that for Byzantium to prosper they would need to stabilize their internal politics first, to create a system that does not give the opportunity to so many would be emperors. From burning the navy and relying on Italian states, to calling the 4th crusade for internal conflicts, the mistakes that were made while struggling for the throne were endless and destructive. Breaching the gap between Constantinopole and the eastern military aristocracy, or taking away power from it were tactics that were used to relative success, but they did not carry over. If they figured that out, the ability of the empire to constantly adapt and attract foreign powers together with excellent diplomacy and vast cultural influence that they exterted over neighbouring territories would be enough for them to earn a place in the new world. Maybe not as the next Great Britain or Spain, but certainly as a considerable power.
Anyone else catch it around 2:15 the music to Yakko’s World starts as he’s naming off other potential Byzantine enemies? Good one, Cody, that was awesome
He'd have surveyed all of Africa. He wasn't much interested in the west, but for some very strange reason he actually wanted to sail all around Africa. Edit: his empire would either still fall and not much would change, or would replace Persia as the Roman threat to the east.... but due to Roman innovations, and how poor the Phalanx was, they'd still lose Greece, Thrace, Illyria, Anatolia (though far less of it), and Egypt.
"Without Brandenburg-Prussia, who knows who unites Germany." Me, with my hopeful eyes: "Bavaria? I mean, this timeline is already strange as it is, might as well sprinkle some lederhosen and funny hats into this. I know it's unlikely, just let me have this."
i mean considering how austria was the 2 strongest german nation it would just have been them? the main reason why they didnt join was because the prussians didnt want to have non german states in unified germany and the austrians didnt wanna lose those
@@meistermagierinvoker I could imagine Germans would get bit ore autonomy then other parts of empire. And maybe Sudets as part of unified Germany or as semi-autonomus teritory like other Ger. kingdoms.
Prussia was the main factor that stopped the Habsburgs from simply inheriting Bavaria in 1778, and in this timeline it doesn't exist. While the resulting fusion would likely end up calling itself Bavaria anyway, it'd simply be Austria changing tags after usurping its de jure kingdom title.
0:00 Intro 1:17 Look at those borders 2:08 What Killed The Byzantines? 3:50 A New Rome 6:40 Rivals of The Holy Roman Empire The 4th Crusade was horrible for The Byzantine Empire 9:15 Martin Luther 10:37 A Medieval Land in a Modern World
I might be weird because I would be into a four hour discussion on these what if scenarios but some of the saddest words I ever hear in these videos is "I'm not going to go into that too much because this video is long enough already"
I'm not drunk but can I help restore the glory of Rome. I might be able to get the knights templar on board if we stop by the Vatican on the way to Constantinople.
The Tides of HIstory podcast interviewed a historian who specialized in Mediterranean history. One of the things they discussed is how the Mediterranean Sea became even more important after the discovery of the America's. The Ottomans were still dealing with the Portuguese raiding the Indian Ocean, but they also managed to jack up prices for Oriental goods. And of course the eventual building of the Suez Canal makes the Mediterrean the most important trade route for European goods and oil imports. So don't count out the sea just yet!
@@saratmodugu4000 Composite monarchies. It did a great job explaining how all those fancy titles of nobility work. They fought, bought, and negotiated their way into controlling towns and cities with separate rules for how they are managed. And if a ruler doesn't follow the terms of the contract, they could find themselves kicked out and the title for that land put up for grabs!
Interesting. The makes me think of aomething else. What if the ERE colonizes Egypt and the Red Sea coast, and builds the Suez Canal some 50-100 (I dont 100 years is too much but it is a stretch), how would that work out? Now they control the fastest route to Asia and might get some of their ancient bread baskets back. That could revitalize their economy and also cause the Scramble for Africa to happen way earlier.
Fact: If the ottomans held the territories the Byzantines held on the 7th century or 12th centuries, they wouldn't have lasted long with this list (scroll) of enemies that wanted a piece or pieces of the Byzantines
Perhaps if the Byzantines survived to this day, the title of Roman Emperor would've been so centralized and old, it could've become similar to Japan in the modern day, with a Roman Emperor as a face for the state, but a democratic government that actually runs the state.
@Visionoflife 41 I suppose it doesn't necessarily have to be, but it would fit with the trend of the world (Though I'm sure things would've changed somewhat, with the whole Byzantines still being around and such)
@LegoGuy87 But why, why would they do that. Memes aside, Roman Republican ideas and structures were reserve to history books even before the fall of western Rome. Culture, politics and religion change and not necessarily come back even if people still feel connected to it the history of Ancient Rome is a big proof of that.
@Visionoflife 41 For better and for worse, the ideas of liberalism and republicanism will still happen regardless of Byzantium's existence. The Russian and Ottoman empires initially existed without democratic institutions like a Congress but by the late 1800's they are compelled by internal politics to have one. Even the militaristic Japan of 1942 still has a democratically elected Diet since 1884...
Yes I suppose, Bulgaria is a joke for every non-bulgarian who talks and makes videos about Byzantine. But in reality they've been in wars since 684 to 1396 and many times Bulgaria has been a huge threat to the Byzantine Empire.
literally 1/3 of the Byzantium empire he showed in the video was acually Bulgaria AND IT WASNT EVEN MENTIONED ONCE + it was a pretty big world power in 12-13th century, it fell because of Ottomans. So if in this scenario Ottomans never attacked, no reason for Bulgaria to be a part of the Byzantium empire /yeah ik ll through history Bulgaria and Byzantium empire tried to conquire each other or marry for each other's children so they have the connections and stuff but when someone attacks they unite their forces and all, their relationship was kinda like you and your sibling you dont really like, you fight and all but when someone is against you, you go together against the/
His videos are retarted i rather have him not mention it because my countury does not deserve to be offended Infront of millions of people by some limited pig.
i mean, Bulgaria was greatly weakened by the Byzantines but by weakening Bulgaria, they also weakened themselves, starting the decline but this actually happened, so there is no need to change this part
"The Crusades didn't change much in the middle east." Dude, the mamluks; they changed everything, from the entire history of Egypt, to the extent of the Mongol invasion. Also books and ideas from the Islamic and Byzantine world had a great deal of impact on medieval Europe, in fact to such an extent that it's a topic all of its own....Oh and there would have still been crusades in Spain and likely elsewhere as they had started even before the "first" crusade had.
I would argue that another good point of divergence would be if Basil II had a better heir than his brother, or also if Otto III hadn't died so young. Basil II was perhaps the best Eastern Roman Emperor in a VERY long time, he expanded the borders of the empire to the most famous depiction of them. It was unfortunately short lived, because his brother was so incompetent, but if Basil had had an heir he could take with him on campaigns and such, or even if he had perhaps invested time in instilling a sense of duty in his brother, we may see a very different Eastern Rome. Incidentally, if Otto III doesn't die young, then Basil marries his niece Zoe to him, as was originally planned, and for the first time in a LONG time, East and West are united in an Alliance. Another interesting point of divergence is if Manuel Komnenos never has a son. He had appointed a Hungarian prince, Bela III (future king of Hungary as well) as his heir. IIRC Bela had even been baptized Orthodox and renamed himself Alexios, and was betrothed to Manuel's daughter or something. If Manuel never has a son, Bela Alexios ascends the throne, and soo after he also inherits Hungary. It would have been an interesting Union to say the least.
Regarding the German unity: Without Prussia a greater German unification would have been possible which would create a Habsburg Reich including large parts of today Germany, Austria, parts of Italy and Hungary. Maybe this would have led to a far earlier European unity in central and eastern Europe
Since there would be no strong Prussia in this alternative world, there would be no diplomatic revolution - a major change of alliances on the European continent. Instead of Prussia in the XVIII century, the main threat to Western Europe would be considered France. As for the Balkans, a possible Alliance between Russia and Byzantium could serve for a long time as a guarantee of the security of the Eastern Roman Empire. This would be a rather strange "big game", since Russia would already control Constantinople and the black sea Straits-through its ally. There would not have been the Crimean war or the war of 1877-1878, but perhaps the war of Russia and Byzantium against great Britain, Austria and the Arab States of the Levant. It would be interesting to see this - the first world war for the legacy of decrepit Byzantium. In the East, the interests of Britain and Germany-Austria would not contradict, but coincide with each other. We get the war of the Alliance of England, Germany, possibly Poland, the States of the middle East and Japan against the Alliance of France, Russia and Byzantium. Who would win it? I don't know.
Maybe Brandenburg could unite Germany (considering they had Berlin and I think they were more urbanized) and Prussia would just be Polish or Baltic. I think the main difference in this scenario is that Germany doesn’t expand as much East
Without prussias intervention bavaria would have been part of austria. A greater habsburg reich with germany, austria and italy would certainly be interesting. Though the revolution would likely still have changed politics, maybe also splitting italy from germany again. Thats actually a really interesting idea.
last i check the few has "latin empire,venice,turk,ottoturk,almost every musilim state untill the decline and every europe kingdom predecessor babarian"
I'm pretty sure bulgaria would be a lot weaker in this timeline, remember Russia and Byzantium are great allies and if byzantium kept strong for a while they could support russian expansion to the black sea cutting off then cornering the bulgarians
@@nbewarwe yeah, but what is unique is making the empire give you a title and bending it to the knee and making it a de facto vassal for a few years paying continuous tribute and homage to your tsar...
And than u give up this dream plays something in asia and after 100 years u look onto Europe and the ottomans are dead and the byzantines rule in Greece
considering the fact that the byzantines started the renaissance, they wouldn't be the sick man of europe. There would be no european renaissance not for a while if they'd survived. Technology would lag behind in european states while the byzantines held a tech advantage for a while, eventually filtering it down through trade or other means. They'd become a dominant superpower, most of the kings in europe sat on chairs. The byzantine emperor had a throne that had a complex system of gears that allowed it to be raised as high as 50 feet. Along with greek fire, and many other complex inventions.
Europeans also had access to the classics held at the Arabic library in Toledo. Translation from the original language is obviously superior, but Gerald of Cremona produced numerous satisfactory translations from Arabic. By the Renaissance, European science had progressed 300 years past the level of classical science, thanks to Gerald's translations.
Remember that the Greek Throne (or Roman) was very impressive, with Automatons, dang it i forgot to mention it in my comment! Imagine developing the Automatons as City Guards with Greek Siphons (Fire)! OMG LETS DO A MOVIE!
@@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014 Still, like Cody said, Byzantines couldn't conquer North or South America due to geographical locations. Their trade routes would dry out over time as the Portuguese, Spanish, British empire create massive fleets and Atlantic trade routes. Plus, they would be much less powerful than Ottomans(because they wouldn't conquer Mamluk Egypt, internal conflicts and Sunni religion and culture and all that). The Ottoman empire was very powerful in the 1500s, and they just dwindled out in 1800s(Certainly not because they lacked Greek technology.) Italy was the hub of the Renaissance, and they didn't became the body builder of Europe. Face it. The Byzantine empire would be the old sick grandpa of Europe.
@@허윤형-v7b They may not be able to conquer The Americas. But if you take Egypt and the Levant you can easily go from there and colonize the East Indies and Indian subcontinent.
“Or use [the Crusades] as an inaccurate allegory for current events.” Priceless! Fantastic job! I love the ERE; it’s a pity that most conceptions of medieval culture and politics are rooted in western feudalism without considering those of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Very true. The Eastern Roman Empire was the closest thing medieval Europe had to a modern state. A realm that was ruled not by landholding aristocrats but by a centralized administration whose authority was based on legalism and precedent as opposed to simply owning all the land. The landed gentry was influential in the Empire, but their influence could always be curtailed by the machinery of the state in Constantinople. It's part of the reason why in the west the term "Byzantine" is associated with needless complexity and despotism.
@@grubbybum3614 you are right. genetics show western turks are greek, easterns armenian, north caucasian, south kurdish and arabic descendants with 10-15% central asian genes. and for the abdou, i really feel sorry for the people of these lands. maybe it would have been better if turkic invasion didn't happen. from armenia to the borders of vienna where turks ruled, there are deep problems with the people and administrations.
I like how the alternate Byzantine very much ends up like the Ottoman Empire that conquered it. The 'sick man' among the European great powers, stuck in its traditions and eventually forced to accept change. Geography really does largely determine the fate of a nation-state.
Dude Ottomans had Hellenes in economy trade science and politics.They were "the sick man" because they never change their farmers livestyle.The byzantines on the other hand managed to survive more than 1000 years because they were competitive themselves.
I see almost now way the Byzantines would have become the sick man of Europe. Consider they retain the scholars who, in our timeline, became the genesis of the Renaissance. I also see them incorporating the Kievian Rus, thus becoming a conglomeration of Russia and the Ottomans. Unlike the Ottomans, who never learned to administer an empire effectively, the Byzantines could draw on 2000 years of continuity and experience. They weren't perfect, but they were at least on par with the other great powers. I imagine them being like Germany after 1871.
@@caseycooper5615 would a union with the Kievan Rus have happened though? I know the Russians love to emphasise their links with Byzantium, but that was only based on a royal marriage and shared religion. Even if it had happened, the Byzantines would then have had to deal with the various hostile nomadic peoples (Scythians, Magyars), and eventually the Mongols. They probably would have been stretched even thinner than they already were. Don't forget, it was their overexpansion under Justinian that cost a lot of Byzantium's resources, and weakened them in the long term.
@J Wh You bring up some good points. One thing I would push back on with Justinian's conquests is I feel it was the more the events of 538 and not overexpansion that led to the ultimate reversal of his conquests. Of course, either way, it led to a weakened ERE and a path for Muslim conquests a century later. I think there would have been a natural alliance between the Rus and the Byzantines, especially given the influence of the Vikings who traveled throughout and a common enemy in the remnants of the Golden Horde. If the Ottomans, with their inefficient government, could hold on for centuries, the same could hold true for the Byzantines. In fact, I'm convinced they would have thrived had they been able to hold on to at least Anatolia and the Balkans.
Yeah but the Roman Empire was Italian while the Byzantine empire was Greek. They are kind of connected to each other, still we have two different nations
@@nestororiginal2344 You should learn the concept of naitons back then, because the romans werent italian they werent italians back then actually and most "romans" emperors werent from what you call italy You must think it as an empire
@@nestororiginal2344 It wasnt a nations, you think like someone from the 21th century here, their culture was helenistic, which was the greek culture and they did reject their own culture themselves
@@AdriatheBwitch Their culture mixed up with the Greek culture. But they had their own alphabet which was copied by the Greek alphabet and their own mythology which was also copied from the Greek Mythology...
@@허윤형-v7b Very true. While the Justinian Plague halted the Eastern Roman advance into western Europe, it also halted the Persian advance into the Empire's eastern frontier. Had the plague never happened, the Byzantines likely are stuck in a long, drawn out war with the Persians.
This was really cool. However, an important butterfly I think you forgot was that the Renaissance, or at least the (North) Italian Renaissance, happened for two main reasons: trade, especially in spices, and Byzantine knowledge in the form of books and scholars fleeing the Turks going to Italy and other parts of Western Europe. While you're right in that they'd lose power and prestige over time and probably eventually become "The Sick Man of Europe," this would happen more slowly as the Renaissance happens more slowly with less trade money (since North Italy would probably have Byzantine competition) as well as less knowledge. Also they had a really long naval tradition so if they ever figured out ships that could do long, transatlantic oceans (or just copied from those he did) I wouldn't put it past them to try and get in on the action. I mean the Spanish had colonies with literal mountains of Silver if there was even a small chance of getting in on that action you know they would've.
I'm not even sure they'd become the sick man just because they wouldn't be a non-Christian nation that would tax the trade as heavily as the Ottomans did, which would still make them a viable route for trade with the east. Without the shrinking empire, they might actually expand a bit when the Arabs start to faulty. Perhaps in trying to reclaim the Empire of old, they capture Egypt and eventually make their own Suez canal before falling too far behind.
I would say one major uncertainty regarding this timeline would be the Reconquista. Should that process not recieve the zealous fuel of the crusading spirit, would the Christians still be able to reconquer the peninsula? Also, my own personal way of keeping the Byzantines alive is for Basil II (the Bulgar-Slayer) to have sons whom he raises to militarily competent emperors and it is they, or their own similarly raised children, that instead win at Manzikert and are able to hold off the Turks and other Muslims.This way, not only do the Byzantines get 50 years of peace to gather strength, they also get a stable dynasty to rule during that time. As for Byzantine importance during the modern era, I suppose it hinges on if they can reconquer Egypt and send expeditions south and east.
if the reconquista didnt happen and spain and portugal didnt exist, would that mean the ships invented by the portuguese dont get invented and the iberians are never able to realistically discover the new world or Circumnavigate africa?
@@mel-chan5567 Well the reconquista was already happening by the time the Crusades started and at the time, the Iberians are about halfway down the peninsula, fresh off the taking of Toledo. Muslim power in Iberia is fractured sure, but with less chaos in the Middle East with no Turks, it might be concievable for the Almohads or Almoravids to get support from Egypt or Syria.
I think the Reconquista would've happened anyway. Muslim power was already waning and it was divided up into city states. Additionally, the Reconquista is often depicted as more religious than it actually was.
@@mel-chan5567 Pretty sure England France and Holland would have conquered alot of it then. Since the shipbuilding technique would have build up to a type of caraval anyway
They could make some wars against China with the aid of Russia therefore no covid, also the czarism could never end since they would have the support of the byzantine empire to stop the revolution
The comments like these makes me symphatetic to the Erdoğan and Neo Ottoman cause. Thanks for spewing your hatred. And I am glad my ancestors killed and conquered bunch of you back then.
I’m fairly certain Italy wouldn’t unify. The Byzantines would do everything in their power to stop that. And to be honest a strong Byzantium and a strong russia working together is scary.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the only reason that Portugal... exists is because of the Reconquista? Something that was only prompted into happening because of the crusades, meaning that wouldn't some other kingdom that is created as a result of the non-crusading attitude of this other time take the place of Portugal? That isn't to say that I disagree with their role of basically starving the Byzantines to death, but I just don't think it would be them.
as he said the crusades arent even that big of a thing. a collection of weakend muslim states wouldve still drawn the attantion of christian kingdoms. it may have taken longer as the orthodox threat was bigger than a muslim one for western europe, but it probably wouldve still happend.
Storm Visser Storm Visser I’m not denying the possibility that something similar might have happened, but what I was saying was that it would be VERY different. Now we could probably go back in forth all day over how impactful the Crusades actually were (for instance, I believe I once read something that said that it was only after the first crusade with the knights returning home with all their conquered loot that ideas and stories that had been lost since the collapse of Rome, such as Greek Mythology being reintroduced to the mainstream European population since the Islamic states were the only one who still had records about those old myths. As more and more people began to think about those ideas and coming up with their own from them, it helped eventually kickstart the Renaissance. However, as a disclaimer, it has been years since I did any did any research on that topic and I do not know how accurate that is), but the conversation at hand is about the existence of Portugal and Spain, which I just can’t see happening if the Crusades are never called. Before the Crusades, the Muslim and Christian kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula coexisted in a manner similar to the Christian kingdoms for the rest of Europe. Sure there were skirmishes and fights between Muslims and Christians, but it was just as common for Christians to fight other Christians just as fiercely. It was only because of the Holy War mentality that was brought about because of the Crusades that the Christians united to get rid of the Muslims. Without that, there’s no reason to assume that what was the status quo would suddenly be changed like that. If this alternate Reconquista were to happen, it would be delayed by decades or even centuries, meaning entire dynasties would never rise to power which causes huge butterfly effects alongside the effects of the Orthodox and Protestant vs Catholic Churches. Hell, with that going on, the Muslim kingdoms might take advantage of the situation and expand their borders to completely take over the Peninsula. It might somehow lead to a situation where the Muslims discover the Americas instead and gain all those profits instead, but that is a major stretch.
Flame Spartan The holy war can exist without the crusades. Ultimately a holy war is just a regular war for land and resources but justified to the masses through religion. The Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon would still want to conquer the Iberian Peninsula regardless if the crusades occurred. While peace did exist prior to the 1400s it was always doomed to end
Actually if during the Siege of Constantinople of 1453 one of the commanders on the Byzantines side, a Genoese noble by the name of Gustiniani, was not hit by an arrow and was able to lead his men into pushing the Ottomans final assault on the city, then the Byzantine Empire would have survived. Also there is the Byzantine successor state of the Empire of Trebizond which was around until 1461.
1453 is a little too late. I'd say it still would have been possible for the Byzantines to survive with Turkic migrations into Anatolia, but only with chamges happening much earlier. A victory at Manzkinkert wouldn't have ended the invasions, but it could have helped a lot in the long term. The turkic survivors could have been settled, converted to christianity and helped guard the frontier. Whatever further invasion would have been weakened by the Seljuk internal wars that soon followed Manzinkert, and turkish migrants would have needed to ask permission to settle into Anatolia all the way into the Mongol invasions. The Byzantines could have played an Ayn Jalut like victory over the mongols and used the fleeing turkish refugees as auxiliary troops. From then on, the empire would have kept stable borders and a lot of military manpower to use in order to face western enemies and eventually expand similar to the Ottomans.
@@frfras7 Dude in 1453, the Empire wouldn't have survived. The only way I can see it surviving and thriving is. Ottomans go into a civil war> Byzantine's take advantage, but they would still need someone helping them maybe the Venicians or another Italian State>They start to reconquer Greece. It would need a lot of luck and every one being in a Civil war and being incompetent.
Yeah, sure. But so what? It would only delay the inevitable. If the Ottomans lost in 1453, they would just come back and try again a few years later. The Empire was literally just Constantinople at this point (even the Morea was very autonomous), they couldn't survive like that, only delay their inevitable death for a few more decades. The best you can hope for in 1453 is for Constantine XI to accept Mehmed's peace offer, by handing away Constantinople peacefully in exchange for ruling as an Ottoman vassal in the Morea. If the Palaiologi played their carrds right, they could maybe end up in a similar position to the Romanian Principalities, which were suzerain to the Ottomans, but de facto independent.
I went to Constantinople 2 years ago, i swear to God i was bored and depressed the whole trip, but when i entered hagia sophia, i felt the most passion i could ever feel till this day. It will forever live in our heart
I mean according to this video, we just get Byzantine 3 sided 30 Years War, and a repeat of the Ottoman conquests of Europe, but Roman themed. Then Byzantium just dies a slow horrible death, like the Ottomans, as the sick man of Europe. Oh yeah, also no Renaissance either, as Byzantine knowledge is never passed to Italy with the Siege of Constantinople.
@marios gianopoulos I mean that's nice and all for the Greeks, but that doesn't help the various thousands of people killed in the Byzantine Wars, explained in the videos. There could also be an ethnic cleansing situation, with Catholics and Orthodox majority ethnicities murdering eachother, Yugoslavia style.
Would there even be a renaissance as we know it, in this world? Given that the Renaissance was pretty much a result of Roman scholars, artists, bureaucrats, etc, fleeing Constantinople to Italy after the Turkish conquest...
The reconnaissance era already started in Western Europe and they already had mechanical clocks and the compass way before the fall of Constantinople plus other inventions after 400 years of the dark ages. Go and take your fake history somewhere else.
If they were still around = us and them would still be calling them Romans or Eastern Greek Romans, and the word Byzantine would've never had been used for calling them that or would be used for a name of something else instead.
@@Isometrix116 You could argue that Caesar and Octavian were Rome adapting. Dividing Rome was another example of them adapting to survive. Sure, effectively abandoning half the empire so the richer half can keep going isn't as glorious as beating Carthage, but it's still adapting to the changes of the world.
I personally feel like when Rome was falling behind the west, they'd probably revert back to a republic. This would give them more legitimacy as the true Roman Empire, and the emperor would likely remain as a figure head. If they had survived I think they'd still be around today. Just with Greece, most of Thrace, and Anatolia. They'd have probably lost some Balkan lands during rebellion, or wars. Probably their borders would be around what Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria (or parts of), Albania, and North Macedonia are today. Likely just called the Roman Republic... and probably being a mediator during the cold war, or just outright an ally of the west because I HIGHLY doubt they'd ever be communist, or socialist.
@@andrewgreenwood9068 which is why I said a possible mediator. Buy it Russia became communist... wellll... Also, they'd deffinatly be on the allies side during ww2 in hopes of gaining lost territory, and in ww1 they'd likely stay neutral, or they'd side with Russia agaisnt Austria.
@@g-ratedhistory8233 Then call it not republic but constitutional Monarchy with a Senate. So more a reversion to the times of the Roman Kingdom, with maybe more democratic outsets for the senate with lessons drawn form it's history.
Let's reconquer Alexanders empire! Hey, that would give them direct trade routes into India and east Africa and might prevent England from colonizing there. Or causes a massive war between them.
One thing I thought of, was Russia. That dynamic was mostly ignored, but it’s pretty important. Russia and the Ottomans kept each other in check through most of their history. They were natural enemies, and the rest of Europe were perfectly content to let them weaken each other. But in this timeline, they’d be allies. Now, the Russian and Ottoman equivalent would be allies. Russia wouldn’t need to worry about the south. They’d have access to warm water, the Mediterranean. A fellow orthodox nation has replaced their main rival. Not only that, they’re a strong absolute monarchy as well. They would be best buds. The entirety of Eastern Europe would be at the whim of two world powers who are super chummy with each other. That would shake things up
If not already mentioned in the comments (too many to check), read "Agent of Byzantium," by Harry Turtledove. He is a master of alternate history scenarios and has a Ph.D. in Byzantine history.
There's a reason Constantinople was called "the city of the world's desire." Because everyone, and I mean everyone, wanted it for themselves.
Kinda the Poland of cities.
@@aliveyetundead what's so cool about poland?
And because it was such a huge and prosperous city ( at least before 1204) not only it was a really diverse city in terms of people from all places living there but it was the literal Asgard for the Norsemen going down there. Some Norse even recognized bizantine emperors as their political superiors back there and people like Harold Hardrada made themselves famous and rich by serving in the Varangian guard,atracted by the possibilities the city had to offer
I mean, it had so much trade going through it that shouldn't be a surprise.
@@Practitioner_of_Diogenes Absolutely not. Richer and arguably more prestigious than Rome itself.
In this timeline, the Roman Empire would have the single longest unbroken streak of independence in history
Edit: Why tf are people still responding to this comment it has been 3 actual years
The streak would transcend 2000 years. Let that sink in.
Actually depending on which date you take for the start of the Byzantine Empire it would either still be 94 years younger than the Republic of San Marino or if you take 286 when the Roman Empire first divided then it would only be 15 years older.
@@AndreiBucin I am fairly sure he's taking either 27 or 49 BC, and treating the Byzantines as one and the same with the original Empire.
Arguably it would be around 2,500 years if you go from the founding of the republic. Rome already holds that record if you go from the republic, but now, even if you went from the founding of the empire, it would be the oldedt
@@tanwenwalters7689 Technically it is one and the same.
The last Emperor of Byzantium, Constantine XI Palaeologus, upon his city being invaded proclaimed "The city is fallen and I am still alive". He then tore off his imperial ornaments so as to let nothing distinguish him from any other soldier and led his remaining men into a last charge where he was killed.
that's how our leaders should look up to be
This is quite the historical tidbit you have there, Jeremy Hillary Boob PHD.
I can confirm this
True Roman
Atleast he died a true Roman
“Man nails a piece of paper to a door.” Best explanation I’ve ever heard a better description of the reformation
And it all hinges on something that never actually happened.
HappyBeezerStudios - by Lord_Mogul what never happened?
@@TheMudKip-ff2tb Martin Luther never nailed his teses on a chuch's door. It was fabricated by german nationalism.
@David McConville Precisely, the reformation was a joke, they are no better, thet should have converted to orthodoxysm.
@@felipegome1 I read that as “Martin Luther never nailed his testes on a churches door”
>byzantium never falls
>university of constantinople never falls
>Greeks raiding Amerika in 15th century with robot dinosaurs
Also avoiding the major damage due to diseases. At one point they had a Black Death die out
Greeks fleeing to the West from Constantinople with books and manuscripts is the reason we had the Renaissance...
@@arc1t3ct-9 was Alcuin greek? Carolingian renaissance is a thing, look it up. BTW can you guys name at least 5 byzantine philosophers? I'll even help you. Michael Psellos, John Italus, name just three more.
@@hrsmp Alcuin was a Saxon. What makes you think that the Italian Renaissance was in any way influenced by the Saxons? Britain didn't come to prevalence until well after the Norman conquest of 1066...
5 Byzantine Philosophers you say? Here is a list of the 18 most famous:
Gemistus Pletho
Michael Psellos
Theodore Metochites
Photios I of Constantinople
Gregory Palamas
Gennadius Scholarius
Nikephoros Blemmydes
Michael of Ephesus
John Philoponus
George Pachymeres
Arethas of Caesarea
Nicephorus Gregoras
Nikephoros Choumnos
Maximus the Confessor
Simplicius of Cilicia
Bessarion
Leo the Mathematician
George of Trebizond
yup sounds right to me
If I had a penny every time this was attempted on EU4, I would probably buy tesla or something
I am the funniest TH-camr of all time I watched my latest video and laughed for 69 minutes straight I am extremely funny I am dangerously funny and I have two girlfriends who think I am extremely dangerously funny and they watch all of my videos thanks for listening dear 2i
@@AxxLAfriku you are funny
You would have at least a full dollar from me.
@@AxxLAfriku Can you please stop advertising your channel on EVERY VIDEO YOU FIND! Like half the videos I see you're there.
You probably have like 50 bucks from me not going to lie lmao
I always love how you represent tension by having the people vibrate at eachother
Imagine how shocking it would be if the Americas weren't discovered until planes or satalite mapping.
Hey Jimmy, come look at this!
What is it?
I think its a new continent!
Dear God.....
New alternate history video on this?
christopher snedeker Country that sent the first sattlelite is Russia not USA.
christopher snedeker first rocket was made by Germany (V1 and V2) not USA
christopher snedeker USA always came late at everything.
“The Byzantine state will be re-organized into the Greek Empire!!!!”
“So this is how Rome dies, with thunderous applause.”
More like a Federation after America I think, or even a democratic monarchy.
It may be just as simple as referring to themselves as the Roman Republic again.
@Shafiqul Alam They would have blocked access to Russia's only warm water port to the outside world. They could have made a bundle taxing Russian imports.
@@petermills3814 The term is constitutional monarchy.
or maybe People's Republic of Rome
"Because the Byzantine, no the ROMAN EMPIRE held firm." I love that end quote.
I definitely agree with you on that one, tis' a nice touch 👌
When their capital used to be called Byzantium but isnt anymore, it is an obvious smear from western jealous scholars on the empire since it ended a city state.
@@majormarketing6552 Rome still exists through its sons (latins and greeks and maybe Russia) it was far more than just a empire.
Yes, finally Byzantine finally gets what it deserves
@@mojewjewjew4420 how is Russia considered a child of rome
Imagine if Odoacer's Kingdom of Italy survived. A united Kingdom of Italy starting from 476 AD instead of uniting in the 1800s
That'd be the best timeline
Best timeline would be if the Roman empire never fell in that context
Disgusting a barbarian ruling Rome personal I’d like if Majorian had retaken the west or Syagrius had defeated the franks
Barbarians in Rome?! ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING!! All of Italia must be united behind the Emperor and his chad legions
what if Charlemagne and the byzantine empress married and united the empires?
What if Byzantium survived?
So basically half the EU IV games I play...
And most the CK2 games I've played.
@@jhroomy wait what so in ck2 the byzantines dont burn down their whole nation
@@playaboutpatforms2709 Despite their frequent revolts they usually live. In many of my games they actually expand into ahistorical areas.
@@danshakuimo k
@@playaboutpatforms2709 Every playthrough of byzantium of ck2 is personalized. You might get few revolts. You might get Aurelian Simulator.
I'm disappointed, I was expecting them to reconquer Rome and eventually land on the moon. Not become virtually irrelevant.
They wouldnt be, that is just his opinion, Rome unlike the turks survived for over 2000 years and knew how to adapt to changing times so they would figure it out.
Its possible that if they were more aggressive during the whole protestant reformation battle royale and conquered more land in the Mediterranean they could've became a naval superpower, If they were even more aggressive they could've crippled the latin powers and delayed their exploration and jumpstarted their own.
This isn't eu4 man.
I do not know if they would seek to follow the old AOE2 spammed message.
BUILD A NAVY
If they had a deep water navy: they had enough resources to try an exploitation of Africa and the Middle East or the Americas. Perhaps they would discover and Colonize Australia. Who knows.
What i Do recognize it the Romans and Bysantines were a Republic. They had an Emperor. The Emperor held massive power and ruled the nation, but they had representatives LOTS of them.
I suspect they would end up a bit like Britain. A Parliament of Representatives ruling the nation: with a Ruler 'in charge' of the nation, who had little to actually do with the running of it.
I expect France to have a Revolution. And I expect Nepolion deciding to rebuild the Empire of Rome, and have to crush the Byzantines to do it. Only to discover: That corner of Europe has been using horses in novel ways for CENTURIES. Introduce the first Rifle Cavalry of Europe. War of Maneuver, with a strong Centralized command structure.(although how many professional soldiers they would field given the collapse of the Silk Road profits? Who knows.)
Pure speculation but: they COULD have retaken Egypt and built a Suez Canal, and with control and power over the Shortcut into Asia, they could make a Fortune of the new Silk Road, made their own Colonial claims, and paid for a navy to RULE the Mediterranean and challenge even the British in the Indian. I would then probably set up commities to manage the Middle East and settle the conflicts as best as I could. Not to end Centuries of hostility. But to create and environment of peace and quiet to keep them from trying to unite, forment rebellion or constantly kill each other. Sit down: shut up, enjoy living WITHOUT killing each other for a while.
After all Alexander forged an empire.
Oh and the Colossus of Rhodes would still be there.
The Turks melted it down and sold it for scrap with their conquest of the area..
We're waiting for Spacx to build our rockets!
was sure that this was a ck3 sponsored vid
Europa Universalis game would be more fitting.
@@martinmortyry7444 Yes, but the timing is in line with the launch of CK3 being tomorrow.
And that Paradox Interactive have been sponsoring several TH-cam videos lately because of said launch.
@@martinmortyry7444 Well, afaik, CK3 ends exactly at 1453.
Toasty boi it is on Xbox game pass for pc
@@rohatb That can't be right? Surely all CK3 games must end on November 11th, 1444 ?
Greeks watching this: don’t do that don’t give me hope
Not gonna say it is so ...but it is so.
Yeap
who watching who?
all almost greeks are Romans now.
since 2300 years
Also Italians. We personally se the Byzantine empire as the last true remnent of Rome.
@@VenusIsleNews Greeks where never Roman, the Latin Romans were able to assimilate the cultures they conquered, all but the Greek people, as they kinda of influenced the Roman culture themselves. Yeah, they called themselves Roman for a long while and yeah they had Roman emperors until Justinian, but Greek people are far from "Roman"
Lol “look at that territory, that’s no way to live” priceless
“Don’t knock it till you try it”
-Singapore
Ahem
-san Marino
Sus
-Monaco
I'm a superpower despite only controlling a city block and a single Church.
-Vatican City
Wow
-Luxembourg
If the Byzantine survived, Russia wouldn't self-proclaimed that they are the heirs of Rome despite rome being so far away
Russia doesnt have political continouity with the roman empire in anyway whatsoever.
They are orthodox
That's about it
Philip Weber and a family tie with one of the last Roman princesses, but other than that there’s literally nothing
@@pipebomber04 The two main claims to Russia being the continuation of the Roman Empire are:
1. A Byzantine princess married Ivan the Great while he was Grand Prince of Moscow. He would go on to unite Russia into the Tsardom. His royal family, the Romanovs, were through Ivan's wife direct descendants of the Byzantine emperors.
2. After the fall of Constantinople, the Empire's church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, moved it's center to Moscow, making it the new home of Eastern Roman Christianity.
To me, Russia has a much stronger claim to being the heirs to the Roman Empire than the Holy Roman Empire.
But could the muscovite princes conquered the land not occupied by the Teutonic order turning the Baltic states into Orthodox princes
I swear I am not a Byzantophile. *SHakEs iN eXItEMenT*
Ok Helenophile
Byzantium was just as Armenian as it was greek.
@@Newbmann i dont see how this is related.
@@andrewgreenwood9068 I was pointing out how somone could like byzantium and not be a Byzantophile
Byzantophiles like to go on and on about how it was ROMAN and Helenophiles like to go on and on about how it was GREEK.
yeees
@@Newbmann I mean, it was basically greek with roman characteristics lmao
This make me think of a long running EU4 campaign I played. I was using the extended timeline mod and started in 1060 as the Byzantines. I played that same campaign for 8 months until it was 1880. What I did to keep Byzantium alive was I had deep dynastic connections with Russia. Anytime there was a Russo-Turkish War I jumped in with Russia and push down the Levant's coast till I got to the Sinai. Built some ports in the Red Sea and expanded towards India. Set up some colonies in the Indian Ocean, got involved in some Succession Crises, took some overseas colonies from Portugal, etc. By the end I controlled some Indian princely states, some of East Africa, and had all of Indonesia.
By the 1800
If you actually want to experience the timeline, Just start in CK3 (or CK2) and end in VIC2, EU4 don't have the mechanicas for 1300 and earlier or 1750 and later
This makes sense, if the Byzantines got hold of the Suez, they suddenly become a bit more relevant.
Yes the Ottoman also held Egypt but they were an Anti-Colonial Power (although not by choice). The Eastern shores of Africa, nearly the entire coast of India to even Indonesia were held by Sunni Islamic States who were allied with the Ottomans and were even helped by the Ottomans in their efforts to repel Portugese and Dutch Colonialism. The only Islamic Kingdom that the Ottomans attacked outside of their De Jure Mediterranean Cores was Persia, but only managed to conquer Iraq.
In this alternate timeline, the Romans would have no such Obligation toward the Eastern Islamic Sultanates, their only obligatory ally would be Ethiopia and they would thus be competing against the other Rival Colonial Powers instead of resisting them. If Rome can't conquer to the west, it would go East.
@@TheWebsOfCorruptionNeverFail Byzantium will do what Rome couldn't and conquer those damn Parthians/Sassians.
"I won't get political after this video"
-A couple of drinks later....
"ΠΟΥ Θ'ΑΝΑΨΟΥΜΕ ΚΕΡΙΑΑΑΑ???" XD
@ELITE EXTREME GAMER people called themselves Romans, some people actually do to this day. Everybody who does is Greek though. The laungage was Greek, most of the emperors were Greek, the main land of the empire was Grecia and finally, the main part of the population were Greeks.
@ELITE EXTREME GAMER Not quite, the empire had succeed at assimilating much the people that came to live it's boarders.
Gaul and Hispaniola were considered integral parts of the Empire, the Franks and the Goths were what shifted the demographics and put to the sword vast amounts of Romans. The Franks in fact can be credited with the French language being a mix of the old Gallo Romantic dialect mix with the Germanic of the Franks.
The problem in the rich east came with the first black death wiping out 2/3s of the Empire's population and after the Hums and the Slavic nomad invasions. The Empire's vast Roman population it once had in the Balkans was wiped out. The Slavic nomads filled the void they created and shifted the demographics. This is what shifted the Roman Empire's demographics to a mostly multi national empire as the people the Romans had spent millennia assimilating were replaced while the Empire was the weakest it had ever been and could not assimilate them anymore. The st1 black death decided the fate of Eastern Roma, not the people that invaded during what was going to be the reconquest of the west.
I will give you Anatolian's ethnic diversity, but the mountainous region meant the eastern sections were boarder lands with the Persian dynasties.
Last the consent of nationalities is not a good once since most people never left the villages they lived in or had dialectics utterly incomprehensible without state intervention. The concept of a shared cultural or ethnic identity was prevalent during these time.
The biggest reason the Turks had such an easy time taking the last of the Roman Empire was because of the collapse of tolerance that was necessary to run & sustain such an Empire's social structure. The fanaticism and great intolerance of the Christianity faith killed the Empire more so then the invasions of nomads. Remember when bathing and personal hygiene was declared a satanic ritual, think about those late Roman plagues. Or when the Armenians were declared heretics of the christian faith, the Seljuks rolled into the eastern lands easily defeating the two crusades called to defeat them.
@ELITE EXTREME GAMER youbare mixing things up in general . I will clear them to you when i get the free time .
@ELITE EXTREME GAMER Rome was literally what people call now Greece lmao, i am Roman myself which means greek
@ELITE EXTREME GAMER The byzantine empire started as roman but later became greek.The original roman empire was indeed multicultural,but in the eastern meditterenean where constantinople was located,the greeks were dominant.After the fall of the western part of the empire,the term roman was more a political term than a national term.As I said,the dominant ethnicity in eastern meditterenean were Greeks,so after the fall of the western part,they kept calling themselves as Romans because they thought themselves as the inheritors of the Roman empire and the ones that will continue it,but ethnically were greek.After 610 AD,the greek languege became the main languege of the empire but greek was spoken widely even before that,they even adopted greek customs.Finally,the last emperor of the Byzantines,Konstantinos Palaiologos said in his last speech before the fall of the constantinople by the ottomans,that byzantines are descendants of both Romans and Greeks(look it up if you dont believe me)
fun fact: The Byzantine Empire (and Roman Empire) actually collapsed on my birthday
And thus, you're the true successor to Rome.
You're like 600 years old? That's rad.
AUGUSTUS! AUGUSTUS! AUGUSTUS!
Dude, you’re old, like really old.
Andrew S. yes
The reason the ottoman empire became the 'sick man of Europe' had less to do with their geographical position, and more to do with the fact that they ended up staying the same static, agrarian society, while the rest of the world moved on and industrialized.
The Byzantines were far, far more urbanized than the ottomans, and maintained technological and economic superiority over the rest of Europe for almost their entire existence. While their geographical position would lose some of its value as time went on, it wouldn't make their decline inevitable, any more than the much worse geographical positions of countries like russia and germany.
@erick meyer By the time urban came around, the 'empire' was also reduced to Constantinople and moria.
They economically stagnated because they were forced to give Venice and Genoa ruinous trading rights in return for their naval assistance. Plus the fourth crusade wrecked Constantinople and the imperial bureaucracy, destroyed the imperial silk monopoly, and led to decades of civil war that ravaged their economic heartland. Until then, the ERE was by far the wealthiest state in all of europe.
@@tgk2343 China was super wealthy and urbanized, they were also technologically, culturally, economically superior to almost all Europeans for most of their existence. And look how they turned out to be during the 19-20th century.
@@허윤형-v7b That was due more to isolationism than anything else, and the geographical distance between them and europe also played a role in their stagnation.
The ERE was never isolationist, and would be in constant contact, both militarily and economically, with the rest of Europe. Them falling behind like china did is highly unlikely.
Well yes but no, eventually the Russians and the Austrians also began preying on the Ottomans for control over the Balkans, and so the Byzantines would fall to geographical targeting in the Balkans.
Honestly, I believe that for Byzantium to prosper they would need to stabilize their internal politics first, to create a system that does not give the opportunity to so many would be emperors. From burning the navy and relying on Italian states, to calling the 4th crusade for internal conflicts, the mistakes that were made while struggling for the throne were endless and destructive. Breaching the gap between Constantinopole and the eastern military aristocracy, or taking away power from it were tactics that were used to relative success, but they did not carry over.
If they figured that out, the ability of the empire to constantly adapt and attract foreign powers together with excellent diplomacy and vast cultural influence that they exterted over neighbouring territories would be enough for them to earn a place in the new world. Maybe not as the next Great Britain or Spain, but certainly as a considerable power.
So you telling me 11th century Turkish migrations to Anatolia helped to form German Empire in 19th century? Gotta love butterfly effects
Yup and the victors of the worlds wars that started also created the Cold War and the world we currently live in
which means all of our modern problems could be the cause of 1 turkish boi from the 11th century, going into anatolia because why not
Butterfly effects in a nutshell.
@@D00000T that's depressing but awesome at the exact same time.
Anyone else catch it around 2:15 the music to Yakko’s World starts as he’s naming off other potential Byzantine enemies? Good one, Cody, that was awesome
Do what if Alexander The Great didn’t die at a young age
He'd have surveyed all of Africa. He wasn't much interested in the west, but for some very strange reason he actually wanted to sail all around Africa.
Edit: his empire would either still fall and not much would change, or would replace Persia as the Roman threat to the east.... but due to Roman innovations, and how poor the Phalanx was, they'd still lose Greece, Thrace, Illyria, Anatolia (though far less of it), and Egypt.
Bill Wurtz: He never got to India.
He would die at a old age then
His empire fractured due to his premature death. Had he lived long enough to raise his son, the empire would have survived.
His empire probably still collapses. It was simply too vast
"Without Brandenburg-Prussia, who knows who unites Germany."
Me, with my hopeful eyes: "Bavaria? I mean, this timeline is already strange as it is, might as well sprinkle some lederhosen and funny hats into this. I know it's unlikely, just let me have this."
Bayern Munchen unites Germany, so this is some kind of bavarian germany already
i mean considering how austria was the 2 strongest german nation it would just have been them?
the main reason why they didnt join was because the prussians didnt want to have non german states in unified germany and the austrians didnt wanna lose those
Saxony. They had Poland behind them.
@@meistermagierinvoker I could imagine Germans would get bit ore autonomy then other parts of empire. And maybe Sudets as part of unified Germany or as semi-autonomus teritory like other Ger. kingdoms.
Prussia was the main factor that stopped the Habsburgs from simply inheriting Bavaria in 1778, and in this timeline it doesn't exist. While the resulting fusion would likely end up calling itself Bavaria anyway, it'd simply be Austria changing tags after usurping its de jure kingdom title.
The Empire will always exists in our hearts.
Forever,
The Papal States and the Holy Roman Empire still exist in my heart.
"No, the roman empire..."
HE SAID THE THING!
Byzantine: *"Purple The Color Of Royalty"*
Thats exactly what i think, and before knowing that, it was still my favourite colour since a little kid.
Hmmm things do happen for a reason
@Mousa Otbah It isn't
@Mousa Otbah those are your royal references...? Wow.
It still isn't.
That's purple was once worth more than gold
@Mousa Otbah lol imagine still believing that purple is still worth more than gold when they have purple in crayon boxes
Last time I was this early, the sea peoples hadn't caused the Bronze Age Collapse yet
They never did to begin with.
Ahh, it's good to see fellow Historia Civilis fans
0:00 Intro
1:17 Look at those borders
2:08 What Killed The Byzantines?
3:50 A New Rome
6:40 Rivals of The Holy Roman Empire
The 4th Crusade was horrible for The Byzantine Empire
9:15 Martin Luther
10:37 A Medieval Land in a Modern World
The borders aren’t even correct
@@gumbyshrimp2606 you too
4:54
I might be weird because I would be into a four hour discussion on these what if scenarios but some of the saddest words I ever hear in these videos is "I'm not going to go into that too much because this video is long enough already"
i swear i wont get political!
one drink later:
RESTORE BYZANTIUM!
I'm not drunk but can I help restore the glory of Rome. I might be able to get the knights templar on board if we stop by the Vatican on the way to Constantinople.
Byzantium delenda est!
Bring back the Empire!
No >:(
Restoring the Roman Empire is already on its way. It's called the EU.
XD
That moment when you are a Byzantophile and also a Teutophile
What did it cost?
Everything....
I prefer rome.
Sorry Prusia.
@@natanrosales9064 Agreed
Im sure something like the teutonic order wouldve happened anyway
Cringe pfp
I hate teutonics
The Tides of HIstory podcast interviewed a historian who specialized in Mediterranean history. One of the things they discussed is how the Mediterranean Sea became even more important after the discovery of the America's. The Ottomans were still dealing with the Portuguese raiding the Indian Ocean, but they also managed to jack up prices for Oriental goods.
And of course the eventual building of the Suez Canal makes the Mediterrean the most important trade route for European goods and oil imports. So don't count out the sea just yet!
I love that series
What’s your favorite episode?
@@saratmodugu4000 Composite monarchies.
It did a great job explaining how all those fancy titles of nobility work. They fought, bought, and negotiated their way into controlling towns and cities with separate rules for how they are managed.
And if a ruler doesn't follow the terms of the contract, they could find themselves kicked out and the title for that land put up for grabs!
@@justcallmeSheriff Please tell me they got to the Angevin Empire
Interesting. The makes me think of aomething else. What if the ERE colonizes Egypt and the Red Sea coast, and builds the Suez Canal some 50-100 (I dont 100 years is too much but it is a stretch), how would that work out? Now they control the fastest route to Asia and might get some of their ancient bread baskets back. That could revitalize their economy and also cause the Scramble for Africa to happen way earlier.
Fact: If the ottomans held the territories the Byzantines held on the 7th century or 12th centuries, they wouldn't have lasted long with this list (scroll) of enemies that wanted a piece or pieces of the Byzantines
Perhaps if the Byzantines survived to this day, the title of Roman Emperor would've been so centralized and old, it could've become similar to Japan in the modern day, with a Roman Emperor as a face for the state, but a democratic government that actually runs the state.
@Visionoflife 41 I suppose it doesn't necessarily have to be, but it would fit with the trend of the world (Though I'm sure things would've changed somewhat, with the whole Byzantines still being around and such)
@LegoGuy87 But why, why would they do that. Memes aside, Roman Republican ideas and structures were reserve to history books even before the fall of western Rome. Culture, politics and religion change and not necessarily come back even if people still feel connected to it the history of Ancient Rome is a big proof of that.
@Visionoflife 41 For better and for worse, the ideas of liberalism and republicanism will still happen regardless of Byzantium's existence. The Russian and Ottoman empires initially existed without democratic institutions like a Congress but by the late 1800's they are compelled by internal politics to have one. Even the militaristic Japan of 1942 still has a democratically elected Diet since 1884...
@@caiocaguiar9310 I think inevitably, around 1848, there would've been a movement to go back to the roots and restore the senate and democracy
It would actually he interesting how The Balkans and Middle east turned out
Bulgarian empire: I'm i a joke to you cody
CODY: Slavs and serbs
Yes I suppose, Bulgaria is a joke for every non-bulgarian who talks and makes videos about Byzantine. But in reality they've been in wars since 684 to 1396 and many times Bulgaria has been a huge threat to the Byzantine Empire.
literally 1/3 of the Byzantium empire he showed in the video was acually Bulgaria AND IT WASNT EVEN MENTIONED ONCE + it was a pretty big world power in 12-13th century, it fell because of Ottomans. So if in this scenario Ottomans never attacked, no reason for Bulgaria to be a part of the Byzantium empire /yeah ik ll through history Bulgaria and Byzantium empire tried to conquire each other or marry for each other's children so they have the connections and stuff but when someone attacks they unite their forces and all, their relationship was kinda like you and your sibling you dont really like, you fight and all but when someone is against you, you go together against the/
His videos are retarted i rather have him not mention it because my countury does not deserve to be offended Infront of millions of people by some limited pig.
i mean, Bulgaria was greatly weakened by the Byzantines
but by weakening Bulgaria, they also weakened themselves, starting the decline
but this actually happened, so there is no need to change this part
@@tatarkhan33 you seem offended for no reason
"The Crusades didn't change much in the middle east." Dude, the mamluks; they changed everything, from the entire history of Egypt, to the extent of the Mongol invasion. Also books and ideas from the Islamic and Byzantine world had a great deal of impact on medieval Europe, in fact to such an extent that it's a topic all of its own....Oh and there would have still been crusades in Spain and likely elsewhere as they had started even before the "first" crusade had.
Voryn Rosethorn I feel like he doesn’t know as much as history as people think he does
He means that no one in the Middle East cared that much about the crusades in the region until recently.
He’s talking more demographically, the Middle East was always going to be ruled by some steppe warlord regardless
Yeah, without the crusades the Levant would have been way better off without the christians and mamluks taking turns genocideing it
Mameluks were kipchak turkic warriors
I would argue that another good point of divergence would be if Basil II had a better heir than his brother, or also if Otto III hadn't died so young. Basil II was perhaps the best Eastern Roman Emperor in a VERY long time, he expanded the borders of the empire to the most famous depiction of them. It was unfortunately short lived, because his brother was so incompetent, but if Basil had had an heir he could take with him on campaigns and such, or even if he had perhaps invested time in instilling a sense of duty in his brother, we may see a very different Eastern Rome. Incidentally, if Otto III doesn't die young, then Basil marries his niece Zoe to him, as was originally planned, and for the first time in a LONG time, East and West are united in an Alliance.
Another interesting point of divergence is if Manuel Komnenos never has a son. He had appointed a Hungarian prince, Bela III (future king of Hungary as well) as his heir. IIRC Bela had even been baptized Orthodox and renamed himself Alexios, and was betrothed to Manuel's daughter or something. If Manuel never has a son, Bela Alexios ascends the throne, and soo after he also inherits Hungary. It would have been an interesting Union to say the least.
Coincidentally, the same scenario could have existed in the event of a certain earlier Frankish emperor and a Roman empress.
@@wildfire9280Otto and Zoe could have produced an heir.
Karl and Irene were too old at that point and the situation was far more unstable
Regarding the German unity: Without Prussia a greater German unification would have been possible which would create a Habsburg Reich including large parts of today Germany, Austria, parts of Italy and Hungary. Maybe this would have led to a far earlier European unity in central and eastern Europe
Or worse: Bavaria takes over
Since there would be no strong Prussia in this alternative world, there would be no diplomatic revolution - a major change of alliances on the European continent. Instead of Prussia in the XVIII century, the main threat to Western Europe would be considered France.
As for the Balkans, a possible Alliance between Russia and Byzantium could serve for a long time as a guarantee of the security of the Eastern Roman Empire. This would be a rather strange "big game", since Russia would already control Constantinople and the black sea Straits-through its ally. There would not have been the Crimean war or the war of 1877-1878, but perhaps the war of Russia and Byzantium against great Britain, Austria and the Arab States of the Levant.
It would be interesting to see this - the first world war for the legacy of decrepit Byzantium. In the East, the interests of Britain and Germany-Austria would not contradict, but coincide with each other. We get the war of the Alliance of England, Germany, possibly Poland, the States of the middle East and Japan against the Alliance of France, Russia and Byzantium. Who would win it? I don't know.
i mean my first thought went to Luxembourg.
Clearly I look at to many memes
Maybe Brandenburg could unite Germany (considering they had Berlin and I think they were more urbanized) and Prussia would just be Polish or Baltic. I think the main difference in this scenario is that Germany doesn’t expand as much East
Without prussias intervention bavaria would have been part of austria. A greater habsburg reich with germany, austria and italy would certainly be interesting. Though the revolution would likely still have changed politics, maybe also splitting italy from germany again.
Thats actually a really interesting idea.
The Byzantines had some pretty sick aesthetics.
no batter aesthetics then Byzantine aesthetics
P U R P L E
@@SirFaceFone and G O L D
A E S T H E T I C
@@unatco1148 N I C E
7:11 Correction: Justinian targeted the Ostrogoths, and his conquests were partially undone by the Lombards
Bulgaria: is one of the few to even try to battle with the byzantines and was a serious threat
Cody: serbs and slavs
last i check the few has "latin empire,venice,turk,ottoturk,almost every musilim state untill the decline and every europe kingdom predecessor babarian"
being a threat to the Byzantines isn't unique and doesn't make you special.
I'm pretty sure bulgaria would be a lot weaker in this timeline, remember Russia and Byzantium are great allies and if byzantium kept strong for a while they could support russian expansion to the black sea cutting off then cornering the bulgarians
@@nbewarwe yeah, but what is unique is making the empire give you a title and bending it to the knee and making it a de facto vassal for a few years paying continuous tribute and homage to your tsar...
@@nbewarwe um yes it does considering that the byzantine empire was a mojor world player for most of its history
All my EUIV games: What if the Byzantine empire Survived?
And Ottoman Empire saying nope!
Say hi to Byzantine Australia?
@@StergiosMekras Say hi to Byzantine America
And than u give up this dream plays something in asia and after 100 years u look onto Europe and the ottomans are dead and the byzantines rule in Greece
in one of my games Eastern Rome survived but scattered and Constantinople owned by Wallachia wtf
When cody got to the part about who helped kill the Byzantines i was like *here we go*
Basically everyone.
It's like those murder mysteries who dunnit, like Knives Out, where it turns out that everybody pitched in.
At least the Georgians didnt play a role
About the only country boardering them that didnt try to take a peice of them.
That was my favorite video too. "The crusade that ruined everything."
Easier to ask about who didn't helped
considering the fact that the byzantines started the renaissance, they wouldn't be the sick man of europe. There would be no european renaissance not for a while if they'd survived. Technology would lag behind in european states while the byzantines held a tech advantage for a while, eventually filtering it down through trade or other means. They'd become a dominant superpower, most of the kings in europe sat on chairs. The byzantine emperor had a throne that had a complex system of gears that allowed it to be raised as high as 50 feet. Along with greek fire, and many other complex inventions.
Europeans also had access to the classics held at the Arabic library in Toledo. Translation from the original language is obviously superior, but Gerald of Cremona produced numerous satisfactory translations from Arabic. By the Renaissance, European science had progressed 300 years past the level of classical science, thanks to Gerald's translations.
The Byzantines would be the body builder (muscular) man of Europe
Remember that the Greek Throne (or Roman) was very impressive, with Automatons, dang it i forgot to mention it in my comment!
Imagine developing the Automatons as City Guards with Greek Siphons (Fire)!
OMG LETS DO A MOVIE!
@@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014 Still, like Cody said, Byzantines couldn't conquer North or South America due to geographical locations. Their trade routes would dry out over time as the Portuguese, Spanish, British empire create massive fleets and Atlantic trade routes. Plus, they would be much less powerful than Ottomans(because they wouldn't conquer Mamluk Egypt, internal conflicts and Sunni religion and culture and all that). The Ottoman empire was very powerful in the 1500s, and they just dwindled out in 1800s(Certainly not because they lacked Greek technology.) Italy was the hub of the Renaissance, and they didn't became the body builder of Europe.
Face it. The Byzantine empire would be the old sick grandpa of Europe.
@@허윤형-v7b They may not be able to conquer The Americas. But if you take Egypt and the Levant you can easily go from there and colonize the East Indies and Indian subcontinent.
“Or use [the Crusades] as an inaccurate allegory for current events.” Priceless!
Fantastic job! I love the ERE; it’s a pity that most conceptions of medieval culture and politics are rooted in western feudalism without considering those of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Very true. The Eastern Roman Empire was the closest thing medieval Europe had to a modern state. A realm that was ruled not by landholding aristocrats but by a centralized administration whose authority was based on legalism and precedent as opposed to simply owning all the land. The landed gentry was influential in the Empire, but their influence could always be curtailed by the machinery of the state in Constantinople. It's part of the reason why in the west the term "Byzantine" is associated with needless complexity and despotism.
Me: *sees new AlternateHistoryHub video*
My online class:
Me:
Me: *mutes Zoom microphone*
Yeah. I just watch youtube during my zoom calls lol
same
Its stupid how they make us use zoom
mute a 'Roman' enperor you brick..
I mean that brick sitting and ordering.. fron his golden toilet
I like how he mentioned Serbs and Hungarians but not even one mention of Bulgarians which were right next to Constantinople the whole time.
The consequences of ERE existing on Germany were very interesting. I never thought about this in that way.
How could we live in a world without the picklehaube, one of the coolest headpieces.
Doodguy The blank Germaboo #738399272799
No or delayed Renaissance without the fall of The City in 1453
Constantine XI: a true roman dies on his feet.
OK, now I really need a "What if the Teutonic Knights never existed?" video
The templars would be sent in their stead, forming the Templar state.
@@danshakuimo I doubt it. The Teutons were Germans. The Templars had to run Cyprus and their holdings in France.
European wild forest would have lasted longer
Cody : What if byzantine empire survived ?
Turkish viewers : ( Sad ottoman noises )
Surprised this comment sections hasn't been taken over by Greek and Turkish keyboard warriors.
Turkish opposition: No Erdogan tho :)
@@SirGeorge8600 Me too actually
@@SirGeorge8600 Turks deny their own history. They're actually the descendants of Byzantinians, not the Turks.
@@grubbybum3614 you are right. genetics show western turks are greek, easterns armenian, north caucasian, south kurdish and arabic descendants with 10-15% central asian genes. and for the abdou, i really feel sorry for the people of these lands. maybe it would have been better if turkic invasion didn't happen. from armenia to the borders of vienna where turks ruled, there are deep problems with the people and administrations.
Bruh like the word Byzantine just sounds really cool.
It’s pronounced Byzantine silly, not Byzantine
@@BasedBebs REEEEEEEEEEEEE
@@BasedBebs REEEEEEEEEEE
@@BasedBebs ree
True, but ROME
I like how the alternate Byzantine very much ends up like the Ottoman Empire that conquered it. The 'sick man' among the European great powers, stuck in its traditions and eventually forced to accept change. Geography really does largely determine the fate of a nation-state.
There was much political and internal reasons for the ottomans decline tho, we can't say what the byzantines would have done
Dude Ottomans had Hellenes in economy trade science and politics.They were "the sick man" because they never change their farmers livestyle.The byzantines on the other hand managed to survive more than 1000 years because they were competitive themselves.
I see almost now way the Byzantines would have become the sick man of Europe. Consider they retain the scholars who, in our timeline, became the genesis of the Renaissance. I also see them incorporating the Kievian Rus, thus becoming a conglomeration of Russia and the Ottomans. Unlike the Ottomans, who never learned to administer an empire effectively, the Byzantines could draw on 2000 years of continuity and experience. They weren't perfect, but they were at least on par with the other great powers. I imagine them being like Germany after 1871.
@@caseycooper5615 would a union with the Kievan Rus have happened though? I know the Russians love to emphasise their links with Byzantium, but that was only based on a royal marriage and shared religion. Even if it had happened, the Byzantines would then have had to deal with the various hostile nomadic peoples (Scythians, Magyars), and eventually the Mongols.
They probably would have been stretched even thinner than they already were. Don't forget, it was their overexpansion under Justinian that cost a lot of Byzantium's resources, and weakened them in the long term.
@J Wh You bring up some good points. One thing I would push back on with Justinian's conquests is I feel it was the more the events of 538 and not overexpansion that led to the ultimate reversal of his conquests. Of course, either way, it led to a weakened ERE and a path for Muslim conquests a century later.
I think there would have been a natural alliance between the Rus and the Byzantines, especially given the influence of the Vikings who traveled throughout and a common enemy in the remnants of the Golden Horde. If the Ottomans, with their inefficient government, could hold on for centuries, the same could hold true for the Byzantines. In fact, I'm convinced they would have thrived had they been able to hold on to at least Anatolia and the Balkans.
>Byzantium survives..... *"APES. TOGETHER. STRONG"*
Last time I was this early, the Eastern Roman's still existed
Last time I was this early, Vikings landed in North America.
@@DarDarBinks1986 I'm in Canada right now so good comment
last time i was early rome was still a city state
Last time i was this early england was still celtic
@@maleexile9053 Last time I was this early England was still english
*Having just come off of Iron Harvest and the statement Germany would have needed a new unification state*
S A X O N Y .
Man of culture here
@@capitanjulietti3436 Saxony, Bavaria, the Low Countries, the Rhenish states, or Austria. Choose
Nerds dont forget ULM
Saxons? How about the anglos oh wait I accidentally created England in germany
14:14 BEST MOMENT OF RELIEF IN MY LIFE
Yeah but the Roman Empire was Italian while the Byzantine empire was Greek. They are kind of connected to each other, still we have two different nations
@@nestororiginal2344 You should learn the concept of naitons back then, because the romans werent italian they werent italians back then actually and most "romans" emperors werent from what you call italy
You must think it as an empire
@@AdriatheBwitch Yeah it was an empire but with two different nation
@@nestororiginal2344 It wasnt a nations, you think like someone from the 21th century here, their culture was helenistic, which was the greek culture and they did reject their own culture themselves
@@AdriatheBwitch Their culture mixed up with the Greek culture. But they had their own alphabet which was copied by the Greek alphabet and their own mythology which was also copied from the Greek Mythology...
"The city is fallen and I am still alive."
Yea, I’m still alive
How can we sit and do nothing when there is no more Constantinople
But Cody, there's one thing you didn't consider: *What if the Plague of Justinian never happened?*
There would've been a full scale battle between Persia and Eastern Rome. We don't know for sure because Persia was also weakened by the plague.
@@허윤형-v7b Very true. While the Justinian Plague halted the Eastern Roman advance into western Europe, it also halted the Persian advance into the Empire's eastern frontier. Had the plague never happened, the Byzantines likely are stuck in a long, drawn out war with the Persians.
I would love more of an exploration of this new world, perhaps in another part or a series. It would be really cool to watch unfold
This was really cool.
However, an important butterfly I think you forgot was that the Renaissance, or at least the (North) Italian Renaissance, happened for two main reasons: trade, especially in spices, and Byzantine knowledge in the form of books and scholars fleeing the Turks going to Italy and other parts of Western Europe.
While you're right in that they'd lose power and prestige over time and probably eventually become "The Sick Man of Europe," this would happen more slowly as the Renaissance happens more slowly with less trade money (since North Italy would probably have Byzantine competition) as well as less knowledge.
Also they had a really long naval tradition so if they ever figured out ships that could do long, transatlantic oceans (or just copied from those he did) I wouldn't put it past them to try and get in on the action. I mean the Spanish had colonies with literal mountains of Silver if there was even a small chance of getting in on that action you know they would've.
I'm not even sure they'd become the sick man just because they wouldn't be a non-Christian nation that would tax the trade as heavily as the Ottomans did, which would still make them a viable route for trade with the east.
Without the shrinking empire, they might actually expand a bit when the Arabs start to faulty. Perhaps in trying to reclaim the Empire of old, they capture Egypt and eventually make their own Suez canal before falling too far behind.
Great video! I have always held your editing style and personal flair you add in high regard.
@@null5483 Appreciate it man
I would say one major uncertainty regarding this timeline would be the Reconquista. Should that process not recieve the zealous fuel of the crusading spirit, would the Christians still be able to reconquer the peninsula?
Also, my own personal way of keeping the Byzantines alive is for Basil II (the Bulgar-Slayer) to have sons whom he raises to militarily competent emperors and it is they, or their own similarly raised children, that instead win at Manzikert and are able to hold off the Turks and other Muslims.This way, not only do the Byzantines get 50 years of peace to gather strength, they also get a stable dynasty to rule during that time. As for Byzantine importance during the modern era, I suppose it hinges on if they can reconquer Egypt and send expeditions south and east.
if the reconquista didnt happen and spain and portugal didnt exist, would that mean the ships invented by the portuguese dont get invented and the iberians are never able to realistically discover the new world or Circumnavigate africa?
I would imagine someone else would invent caravel-like ships eventually; it’s just a matter of when.
@@mel-chan5567 Well the reconquista was already happening by the time the Crusades started and at the time, the Iberians are about halfway down the peninsula, fresh off the taking of Toledo. Muslim power in Iberia is fractured sure, but with less chaos in the Middle East with no Turks, it might be concievable for the Almohads or Almoravids to get support from Egypt or Syria.
I think the Reconquista would've happened anyway. Muslim power was already waning and it was divided up into city states. Additionally, the Reconquista is often depicted as more religious than it actually was.
@@mel-chan5567 Pretty sure England France and Holland would have conquered alot of it then. Since the shipbuilding technique would have build up to a type of caraval anyway
“The Byzantine Empire survives, and the Ottomans never exist.”
The good ending
They could make some wars against China with the aid of Russia therefore no covid, also the czarism could never end since they would have the support of the byzantine empire to stop the revolution
Sergio Winter wot
@@banditmc12 The good ending
The comments like these makes me symphatetic to the Erdoğan and Neo Ottoman cause.
Thanks for spewing your hatred. And I am glad my ancestors killed and conquered bunch of you back then.
Turks reconquer and Turkifies the Balkan and Greece. Good ending. :)
I’m fairly certain Italy wouldn’t unify. The Byzantines would do everything in their power to stop that. And to be honest a strong Byzantium and a strong russia working together is scary.
Me from the Italic penisula, i would put my trust on the Austrians.
This is where the fun begins
When the Eastern Romans see the First Crusade: Let them pass between us.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the only reason that Portugal... exists is because of the Reconquista? Something that was only prompted into happening because of the crusades, meaning that wouldn't some other kingdom that is created as a result of the non-crusading attitude of this other time take the place of Portugal? That isn't to say that I disagree with their role of basically starving the Byzantines to death, but I just don't think it would be them.
Yeah
i think the reconquista wouldve happend annyway. th
as he said the crusades arent even that big of a thing. a collection of weakend muslim states wouldve still drawn the attantion of christian kingdoms. it may have taken longer as the orthodox threat was bigger than a muslim one for western europe, but it probably wouldve still happend.
Storm Visser Storm Visser I’m not denying the possibility that something similar might have happened, but what I was saying was that it would be VERY different. Now we could probably go back in forth all day over how impactful the Crusades actually were (for instance, I believe I once read something that said that it was only after the first crusade with the knights returning home with all their conquered loot that ideas and stories that had been lost since the collapse of Rome, such as Greek Mythology being reintroduced to the mainstream European population since the Islamic states were the only one who still had records about those old myths. As more and more people began to think about those ideas and coming up with their own from them, it helped eventually kickstart the Renaissance. However, as a disclaimer, it has been years since I did any did any research on that topic and I do not know how accurate that is), but the conversation at hand is about the existence of Portugal and Spain, which I just can’t see happening if the Crusades are never called. Before the Crusades, the Muslim and Christian kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula coexisted in a manner similar to the Christian kingdoms for the rest of Europe. Sure there were skirmishes and fights between Muslims and Christians, but it was just as common for Christians to fight other Christians just as fiercely. It was only because of the Holy War mentality that was brought about because of the Crusades that the Christians united to get rid of the Muslims. Without that, there’s no reason to assume that what was the status quo would suddenly be changed like that. If this alternate Reconquista were to happen, it would be delayed by decades or even centuries, meaning entire dynasties would never rise to power which causes huge butterfly effects alongside the effects of the Orthodox and Protestant vs Catholic Churches. Hell, with that going on, the Muslim kingdoms might take advantage of the situation and expand their borders to completely take over the Peninsula. It might somehow lead to a situation where the Muslims discover the Americas instead and gain all those profits instead, but that is a major stretch.
Flame Spartan The holy war can exist without the crusades. Ultimately a holy war is just a regular war for land and resources but justified to the masses through religion. The Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon would still want to conquer the Iberian Peninsula regardless if the crusades occurred. While peace did exist prior to the 1400s it was always doomed to end
I ain't waiting till the end of the vidoe, I'm liking it already.
4:54 I wasn´t the only one who saw it, right?
nice one,nice one
Actually if during the Siege of Constantinople of 1453 one of the commanders on the Byzantines side, a Genoese noble by the name of Gustiniani, was not hit by an arrow and was able to lead his men into pushing the Ottomans final assault on the city, then the Byzantine Empire would have survived.
Also there is the Byzantine successor state of the Empire of Trebizond which was around until 1461.
I don't think the Empire would have been able to survive, unless every one around them would collapse into civil wars.
1453 is a little too late.
I'd say it still would have been possible for the Byzantines to survive with Turkic migrations into Anatolia, but only with chamges happening much earlier. A victory at Manzkinkert wouldn't have ended the invasions, but it could have helped a lot in the long term. The turkic survivors could have been settled, converted to christianity and helped guard the frontier.
Whatever further invasion would have been weakened by the Seljuk internal wars that soon followed Manzinkert, and turkish migrants would have needed to ask permission to settle into Anatolia all the way into the Mongol invasions. The Byzantines could have played an Ayn Jalut like victory over the mongols and used the fleeing turkish refugees as auxiliary troops. From then on, the empire would have kept stable borders and a lot of military manpower to use in order to face western enemies and eventually expand similar to the Ottomans.
@@frfras7 Dude in 1453, the Empire wouldn't have survived. The only way I can see it surviving and thriving is. Ottomans go into a civil war> Byzantine's take advantage, but they would still need someone helping them maybe the Venicians or another Italian State>They start to reconquer Greece. It would need a lot of luck and every one being in a Civil war and being incompetent.
yes one guy would save an "empire" (that got reduced to a city state) against the most powerful military in the world at the time
Yeah, sure. But so what? It would only delay the inevitable. If the Ottomans lost in 1453, they would just come back and try again a few years later. The Empire was literally just Constantinople at this point (even the Morea was very autonomous), they couldn't survive like that, only delay their inevitable death for a few more decades.
The best you can hope for in 1453 is for Constantine XI to accept Mehmed's peace offer, by handing away Constantinople peacefully in exchange for ruling as an Ottoman vassal in the Morea. If the Palaiologi played their carrds right, they could maybe end up in a similar position to the Romanian Principalities, which were suzerain to the Ottomans, but de facto independent.
Been waiting for this for years. Glorious just glorious.
Great video event though I haven’t watched it yet
I went to Constantinople 2 years ago, i swear to God i was bored and depressed the whole trip, but when i entered hagia sophia, i felt the most passion i could ever feel till this day. It will forever live in our heart
It's been 500 years bro, just get over it. (The new name is Istanbul btw)
@@pilavboy4417 it will remain constantinople
@@elijahmikaelson5319 in your head canon ofc
Constantinople > Byzantium
@@pilavboy4417Stay wrong 6legger
“One where the byzantines survive and the ottomans never exist” truly a better timeline
And no 4th crusade
If people like you didn't exist it would be a 10x better timeline.
I mean according to this video, we just get Byzantine 3 sided 30 Years War, and a repeat of the Ottoman conquests of Europe, but Roman themed. Then Byzantium just dies a slow horrible death, like the Ottomans, as the sick man of Europe.
Oh yeah, also no Renaissance either, as Byzantine knowledge is never passed to Italy with the Siege of Constantinople.
@marios gianopoulos I mean that's nice and all for the Greeks, but that doesn't help the various thousands of people killed in the Byzantine Wars, explained in the videos.
There could also be an ethnic cleansing situation, with Catholics and Orthodox majority ethnicities murdering eachother, Yugoslavia style.
@marios gianopoulos no not all of anitolia only what greece wanted from the greeko turkish war so the coastline and eastern half of it.
You’ve no idea how long I’ve been waiting for this.
“Older men declare war. But it is youth that must fight and die.”
― Herbert Hoover
Not in the Middle Ages. Plenty of young kings leading from the front.
@ It's a spam account run by a marketing douche that throws random historical quotes into random threads. More channels need to block it.
Would there even be a renaissance as we know it, in this world?
Given that the Renaissance was pretty much a result of Roman scholars, artists, bureaucrats, etc, fleeing Constantinople to Italy after the Turkish conquest...
Underrated comment
The reconnaissance era already started in Western Europe and they already had mechanical clocks and the compass way before the fall of Constantinople plus other inventions after 400 years of the dark ages. Go and take your fake history somewhere else.
ngl i'm crying right now, the byzantine empire was one of my favourite empire.
Me too, the day it got collapsed i almost got a heart attack.
"At the Rivers of Babylon we sat, yea we wept when we remembered Zion."
Together with Prussia
@@rubenvanbelzen1217 neckbeard moment
why? It got easily destroyed
The last time I was this early,the Byzantine Empire was called the Roman Empire.
If they were still around = us and them would still be calling them Romans or Eastern Greek Romans, and the word Byzantine would've never had been used for calling them that or would be used for a name of something else instead.
so you are not very early
@@yoghurtmaster1688 ????
Ho ho ho i was just searching for and watching Byzantine videos yesterday the timing is perfect
Now I really want to see a version of Yakko’s World about the Middle Ages. And watch it hit the one hour mark once he reaches the states of the HRE.
I've been watching Alternate History Hub for a while now! I loved their content!! As such, I made my own sci-fi/futurist channel!!
What if the Kazakh Khanate survived?
Would 100% have a effect on russia
One big thing is no great game and afghanastan might not get conquered by the british.
More khazar mommies with khazar milkers
Kazakhs and Khazars are different people morons.
If there's one thing the Romans were good at, it was adapting.
Zerg aren't the only ones who can adapt... Prince Valerian Mengsk of Starcraft 2 Heart of the Swarm.
@@Isometrix116 You could argue that Caesar and Octavian were Rome adapting. Dividing Rome was another example of them adapting to survive. Sure, effectively abandoning half the empire so the richer half can keep going isn't as glorious as beating Carthage, but it's still adapting to the changes of the world.
It was a talent that they ran out of.
@@tezz2698 Except it hurt Western Rome in the long run as the riches of the Eastern half was no longer available to finance it.
@@dubuyajay9964 West was probably doomed anyway. The division allowed the East to survive.
History always amaze me, one event creates so much consequences. Turks migrating to Anatolia literally changed the human history.
“We'll be remembered more for what we destroy than what we create.”
― Chuck Palahniuk
I would love if you do the same scenario with the Qing Dinasty, a scenario like "What if the 100 days reforms succeded?"
Tbh it feels like the circumstances leading up to this scenario are more interesting than the scenario itself.
“As my city falls, I will fall with it” and it never fell.
0:59 That scene will make alt-history fans cry more than the Iron Giant's death.
I personally feel like when Rome was falling behind the west, they'd probably revert back to a republic. This would give them more legitimacy as the true Roman Empire, and the emperor would likely remain as a figure head. If they had survived I think they'd still be around today. Just with Greece, most of Thrace, and Anatolia. They'd have probably lost some Balkan lands during rebellion, or wars. Probably their borders would be around what Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria (or parts of), Albania, and North Macedonia are today. Likely just called the Roman Republic... and probably being a mediator during the cold war, or just outright an ally of the west because I HIGHLY doubt they'd ever be communist, or socialist.
i could see them being quite close to Russia as fellow orthodox nations.
@@andrewgreenwood9068 which is why I said a possible mediator. Buy it Russia became communist... wellll...
Also, they'd deffinatly be on the allies side during ww2 in hopes of gaining lost territory, and in ww1 they'd likely stay neutral, or they'd side with Russia agaisnt Austria.
I really doubt they’d revert back to a republic in anything but name. The emperor couldn’t be the head of state if it were a republic
@@g-ratedhistory8233 that's true, but I said the emoeror would he a figure head. Much like the Queen of England.
@@g-ratedhistory8233 Then call it not republic but constitutional Monarchy with a Senate. So more a reversion to the times of the Roman Kingdom, with maybe more democratic outsets for the senate with lessons drawn form it's history.
EU4 Byzantine players be like: We're all going to China.
Trade companies OP
Let's reconquer Alexanders empire!
Hey, that would give them direct trade routes into India and east Africa and might prevent England from colonizing there. Or causes a massive war between them.
One thing I thought of, was Russia. That dynamic was mostly ignored, but it’s pretty important. Russia and the Ottomans kept each other in check through most of their history. They were natural enemies, and the rest of Europe were perfectly content to let them weaken each other. But in this timeline, they’d be allies. Now, the Russian and Ottoman equivalent would be allies. Russia wouldn’t need to worry about the south. They’d have access to warm water, the Mediterranean. A fellow orthodox nation has replaced their main rival. Not only that, they’re a strong absolute monarchy as well. They would be best buds. The entirety of Eastern Europe would be at the whim of two world powers who are super chummy with each other.
That would shake things up
What that sounds like is “RIP Poland”
7:12 incorrecto the Lombards weren’t present in intake during the time of Justinian it was the Ostrogoths who ruled Italy in those days
The Lombards are what kicked them out of Italy after Justinian passed away
I would love to see an alternate history video exploring what if the Norse actually settled North America instead of leaving.
Venice: Oh how it pains me to do this
Eastern Roman Empire: Wait, I still function
Venice: Wanna bet?
ERE: VENICE!
but then who is Unicron
@@The-kr9rb Ottomans considering they married into the Byanztine royal family?
@@The-kr9rb or the Russians
If not already mentioned in the comments (too many to check), read "Agent of Byzantium," by Harry Turtledove. He is a master of alternate history scenarios and has a Ph.D. in Byzantine history.