Its not often appreciated how close to destruction the Byzantines came in the 11th century. Were it not for the Komnenoi I suspect the Normans would have carved Greece and Asia Minor like a fat turkey- Guiscard conquered Epirus and reached as far as Thessaloniki, while Roussel de Bailleul proclaimed himself king of Galatia. So what if the Frankokratia cake early- if Alexis died prematurely and the empire continued to lack leadership, might we have a Norman conquer Greece, perhaps go so far as to enter into Constantinople and proclaim themselves emperor? This is fairly early in the schism- it's not impossible that a Norman continuum stretching from Latium to Asia Minor might avert it. More practically a series of Norman kingdoms in former Byzantium would probably avert the crusades, though I could see Syria and Antioch still being targeted. In the long term the Normans can probably keep the Turks out of Anatolia- a Norman kingdom of Galatia, Armenia, Syria is likely to focus on defending its lands and succeeding given their martial track record and probable local support from thr Christians.
AHC/WI: Norman conquest of Byzantium
- Thread starter The Undead Martyr
- Start date
It's more a discussion, I don't have any plans for a timelime or anything, at least not yet. Alternate Norman conquests interest me.
pls don't ban me
Monthly Donor
Well... yes the schism happened recently but it was something like the glass full of water with water still pouring in.
Both catholics started having divergence since 800 when the archbishop of Rome decided to become basically a king and creating fake documents about the donation of costantine....( might have messed up some 2/3 popes history but you got the concept) with the orthodox for example accepting icons while the catholics not.
So there are 2 option already of divergence in case of norman ERE.
there is also the instant delay of the hohenstaufen inheritance of sicily since the norman will marry a greek noblewoman to become accepted by the greek nobility.
considering that some greeks were still living in southern Italy... i can draw an example of early event( can't go further than 2 generation, too many butterflies...)
TL:
Boemond manages to win some battles and even kills the Komnemoi Emperor. Reaching the city of worlds desire the nobles fearing for their lands in greece, offer Boemond the crown but on the condition of making his son marry the daughter of Alexios I. Boemond accepts and basically the ERE is again in control of south italy. If Boemond I is very greedy he might try to take over Rome and basically mend the schism or else simply contact the pope and try to solve it pacifically, let's say he goes for the former. Since we are still in the war of investitures the HRE might stay aside and wait for Rome to fall and then offer the Pope asilum in on of the elector states in order to gain supremacy over the pope. the schism won't be mend but will hevaily shift balance , with the orthodox faith likely managing to spread to some degree in Italy.
there are 3 direction of conquest: anatolia->jerusalem, Balkans, Italy. The former for Holy reason but since there is no Pope recognized as superior to the basileus, it's more likely there'll be a focus on the wealthy italian cities, especially Genoa,Milan and Venice in order to have naval dominance and wealth from the able merchant and artisans.
Both catholics started having divergence since 800 when the archbishop of Rome decided to become basically a king and creating fake documents about the donation of costantine....( might have messed up some 2/3 popes history but you got the concept) with the orthodox for example accepting icons while the catholics not.
So there are 2 option already of divergence in case of norman ERE.
there is also the instant delay of the hohenstaufen inheritance of sicily since the norman will marry a greek noblewoman to become accepted by the greek nobility.
considering that some greeks were still living in southern Italy... i can draw an example of early event( can't go further than 2 generation, too many butterflies...)
TL:
Boemond manages to win some battles and even kills the Komnemoi Emperor. Reaching the city of worlds desire the nobles fearing for their lands in greece, offer Boemond the crown but on the condition of making his son marry the daughter of Alexios I. Boemond accepts and basically the ERE is again in control of south italy. If Boemond I is very greedy he might try to take over Rome and basically mend the schism or else simply contact the pope and try to solve it pacifically, let's say he goes for the former. Since we are still in the war of investitures the HRE might stay aside and wait for Rome to fall and then offer the Pope asilum in on of the elector states in order to gain supremacy over the pope. the schism won't be mend but will hevaily shift balance , with the orthodox faith likely managing to spread to some degree in Italy.
there are 3 direction of conquest: anatolia->jerusalem, Balkans, Italy. The former for Holy reason but since there is no Pope recognized as superior to the basileus, it's more likely there'll be a focus on the wealthy italian cities, especially Genoa,Milan and Venice in order to have naval dominance and wealth from the able merchant and artisans.
Subduing Venice would be the first goal. They were allies of Komnenoi and inveterate enemies of the Normans, and would rightly view a Norman Sicilo-Byzantine Empire as an existential threat.
Conquering Rome is possible, but risky. The kings OTL fought over the Papacy; a conquest of Spoleto and the Marche, and de facto vassalization of the Pope, seems in order.
I would say that Sardinia, Venice and Dalmatia would be priority targets. All are nominally Byzantine vassals at this point, and a Norman emperor might well feel obliged to make good on those claims. After that comes consolidating Anatolia, Armenia, Syria, and the clientization of North Africa, possibly part of Andalusia. I can't see Jerusalem being within the sphere of possibility as there is a lot of conquering to do first in Anatolia. It isn't wholly impossible however.
Conquering Rome is possible, but risky. The kings OTL fought over the Papacy; a conquest of Spoleto and the Marche, and de facto vassalization of the Pope, seems in order.
I would say that Sardinia, Venice and Dalmatia would be priority targets. All are nominally Byzantine vassals at this point, and a Norman emperor might well feel obliged to make good on those claims. After that comes consolidating Anatolia, Armenia, Syria, and the clientization of North Africa, possibly part of Andalusia. I can't see Jerusalem being within the sphere of possibility as there is a lot of conquering to do first in Anatolia. It isn't wholly impossible however.
This is quite a fascinating concept for a timeline to be honest.
The more likely outcome rather than carving out Greece like the Crusaders did during the Fourth Crusade would be for the Normans to try and take the Imperial title. They were quite tolerant of the Greeks living in Sicily and the Southern part of the Italian peninsula. They had heavy influences from Byzantine and contemporary Arab culture and societal/governmental structures. Its one of the reasons why the Norman Kingdom Sicily at its height was arguably the most well-organized and one of the richest states in all of christendom. Feudalism for the Normans actually brought order to the region and provided structure. So if anything the Norman Kings would be more likely to try and get the Roman elites on their sides.
Its likely that the Normans though if they couldn't take the city, to probably take portions of Roman Illyria/the Balkans.
Actually the Catholic Church was quite okay with icons. Though in the West instead of icons, statues were the more common as an object of religious vengeance. Though in the East after the 7th Century, the prominence of statues declined with more abstract and the signature Roman icons being popular. I think Heraclius was the last Roman Emperor to have a traditional marble bust of himself. During the iconoclast controversy, Emperor Leo targeted both icons and statues. This was one of the reasons why the Pope denounced iconoclasm as a heresy, and with the exarchate of Ravenna, broke away from the Imperial government in the eight century.
I don't think the Normans would partition the Empire like that especially without seizing Constantinople which was the largest and richest city in Christendom at the time. It was the bridge between East and West, and the Normans wouldn't really be able to support their campaigns without support from the native populace or control over the straits. While the Roman army under Alexios could be defeated, the Roman fleet would still be intact. The more logical outcome would be for the Normans to take the Imperial Crown as this would grant them more legitimacy with their new Greek subjects. Though if anything this would Hellenize the Normans. Though there would be some friction between the Imperial courtiers and the Normans who would distrust each other. Though without the bad blood of the Fourth Crusade, and massacre of the Latins, its likely that this tl would be better than the Komnenian Restoration. Plus I think the Normans had a technical claim to the throne since I think the Norman King had some connections via marriage to Alexios' predecessor Nikephoros Boteneiates.
The Empire would probably have new life breathed into it with the Martial prowess of the Normans now backing it after the collapse of its centuries old military system of the Theme system. Its likely that the Normans here would probably be able to reconquer large parts of Anatolia with almost religious zeal. Plus with the Pecheneg invasion, its likley the Normans would be welcomed by liberators by the Romans in the Balkans and Greece for saving them from the raiders North of the Danube,
I'm not so sure I would agree with you here. I fee like the Pope would be far more likely to compromise now with the newly rejuvenated Empire right on the Papacy's doorstep with the control of Sicily.
Its likely that the Turks would be Hellenized here in ttl as well with some of the Turkish aristocracy likely defecting to the Romans like in otl (see Ioannes Axouchos). In actuality most Greeks, Turks, and Armenians are quite genetically related sharing many haplo-groups. The Turks were a minority of people moving into the area largely populated by Greek and Armenian speakers. Even as late as the Ottoman period, a large part of its armies were composed of many Greeks/Armenians who converted to Islam.
I think you're moving a bit too fast here. The Normans it otl had difficulty subduing North Africa despite their short lived Kingdom of Africa. Here they'd likely have their hands full restoring the structures of the Roman administrative systems and consolidating their current conquests.
I have to wonder if Constantinople would truly welcome the Normans- the elite was remarkably prejudiced against foreigners. Admittedly the Normans as Franks were arguably seen as something of an exception, as I recall while Charlemagne and his heirs were never fully acknowledged as true roman emperors they were respected as Christian emperors and "civilized" to a degree.
Its not implausible that they Normans could try to make a play for the crown but they would face a serious legitimacy problem and that would probably require.... sanguinary solutions to curb the Greek dynatoi.
Its not implausible that they Normans could try to make a play for the crown but they would face a serious legitimacy problem and that would probably require.... sanguinary solutions to curb the Greek dynatoi.
How much would they revive old roman/byzantine systems and how much would they import their own methods? Im given to understand that the theme system was similar to feudalism but that it was also different in important ways
True. Constantine VII had a pretty favorable view of the Franks.
The thing about the Dynatoi about this era, was that for once, they abandoned their self-destructive squabbling for once, realizing how massively they had screwed up the situation. Alexios himself was part of the dynatoi and was able to work with them quite well. The dynatoi would probably open negotiations with the Normans and insist that the Norman King or his son marry Alexios I's daughter. Though to be fair since Ioannes I hasn't been born yet, its likely that the Normans would be willing to have a marriage to Anna Komnene. In otl she was quite charmed by the Franks.
I mean the lands were owned by the Emperor and leased by him. The closest the Roman system came to Pronoia was during the reign of Andronikos II where the Pronoia became hereditary.
I should emphasize that the Normans would enter Byzantium as conquerors, not usurpers- they will, at best, be viewed as a successor to Romania, not its heirs. I do not therefore imagine them fully hellenizing, any more than the Romans did. Neither the Diadochi nor the Seljuks felt obliged to abandon their roots. For that matter nor did the Mongols. England is the exception to prove the rule in many ways.
Rather than viewing the Normans as barbarian emperors, I would suggest considering them as analogous to Christian Ottomans- they would probably retain a latin language, given their sizeable presence in Italy, and the historical tendency of conquerors to retain their culture as a privileged minority. Unless they break totally with the west and lose all their Italian possessions they will likely instead retain Latin/Sicilian as the lingua franca.
The Turks are (as Baseleus noted) distinguished by culture and religion. Religion wise, notwithstanding the schism's historiography, 11th century latins are not unambiguously distinct from the Greeks, particularly given southern Italy. The parts of Latin Europe most likely to fall under Norman imperial rule- Venice, Dalmatia, Sardinia, Sicily, the Romagna- are also those historically most tied to hellenic/neo Roman culture. Notably both the Papacy and Norman Sicily retained bureaucratic and centralized governance, and a strong urban tradition.
Initially the Normans would establish feudal principalities. They are after all a warrior aristocracy, and particularly in Anatolia would have a pressing and welcome need for a strongly autonomous chivalric nobility. As in Medieval Sicily the existing urban and bureaucratic elements would likely predominate, and the Greek administration probsbly integrated wholesale once its loyalty becomes more dependable.
Rather than viewing the Normans as barbarian emperors, I would suggest considering them as analogous to Christian Ottomans- they would probably retain a latin language, given their sizeable presence in Italy, and the historical tendency of conquerors to retain their culture as a privileged minority. Unless they break totally with the west and lose all their Italian possessions they will likely instead retain Latin/Sicilian as the lingua franca.
The Turks are (as Baseleus noted) distinguished by culture and religion. Religion wise, notwithstanding the schism's historiography, 11th century latins are not unambiguously distinct from the Greeks, particularly given southern Italy. The parts of Latin Europe most likely to fall under Norman imperial rule- Venice, Dalmatia, Sardinia, Sicily, the Romagna- are also those historically most tied to hellenic/neo Roman culture. Notably both the Papacy and Norman Sicily retained bureaucratic and centralized governance, and a strong urban tradition.
Initially the Normans would establish feudal principalities. They are after all a warrior aristocracy, and particularly in Anatolia would have a pressing and welcome need for a strongly autonomous chivalric nobility. As in Medieval Sicily the existing urban and bureaucratic elements would likely predominate, and the Greek administration probsbly integrated wholesale once its loyalty becomes more dependable.
This is almost impossible, because conquest (aka: subjugation/annexation) doesn't happen. The reason the Byzantine Empire lasted so long was because a bureaucratic, settled state commanding the allegiance (religion) of its population is near-impossible to dislodge. It's why more often than not, premodern conquerors tried to tie themselves as closely to the previous rulers - Cyrus did it; Alexander did it; and even the Turks, after seizing highly-urbanized & Orthodox Greek W. Anatolia, put up a face as merely Islamicized Roman Basileis. Hell, even the Latin Emperor claimed the mantle of holding the Byzantine universal monarchy; and it's telling when they made an attempt to stretch the limits of that bond, their state dissolved rapidly (reducing to only Constantinople and its peripheries). The border changes you see on maps of the Balkans were always little more than Slavic, Germanic, and/or Turkic boys descending into the Balkans, taking over the least settled parts, and then acting as practically vassals of the Emperor in Constantinople before retreating once military resources were devoted trying to take them down.
Fast forwarding a few centuries, the reason that the Ottoman conquest succeeded was because the Balkans in the 13-14th century was composed of overlapping principalities perpetually fighting each other in war, whose connection to the Roman Emperor was extremely tenuous after centuries of independence, was severely depopulated, and was rife with semi-nomadic banditry (which reappeared in the 1700s). Despite all of this, the Ottomans still had to co-opt the local Christian auxiliaries and elites in the regions where its influence could extend - and, after nearly a century, it was finally able to draw its vassals (+ semi-vassals) into its political orbit before finally absorbing them. These "ideal" conditions were simply not present in late 11th century Rumelia, where the Byzantine Empire (while in decline) was still strong; the population was strongly attached to the Imperial throne; and local provincial elites were still relatively loyal to the said throne. The Norman conquests - of Italy, England, Syria, Russia, etc. - only succeeded where the population was either disaffected, where the local elites were willing to cooperate, or where the state was unsettled. None of the conditions applied to 11th century Byzantium, where the locals and elites were strongly tied to the Emperor; as a result, any Norman 'conquests' are bound to be brief. Trying to merely create new kingdoms while disregarding preexisting very strong geopolitical realities is going to ensure that this is a very difficult scenario.
Fast forwarding a few centuries, the reason that the Ottoman conquest succeeded was because the Balkans in the 13-14th century was composed of overlapping principalities perpetually fighting each other in war, whose connection to the Roman Emperor was extremely tenuous after centuries of independence, was severely depopulated, and was rife with semi-nomadic banditry (which reappeared in the 1700s). Despite all of this, the Ottomans still had to co-opt the local Christian auxiliaries and elites in the regions where its influence could extend - and, after nearly a century, it was finally able to draw its vassals (+ semi-vassals) into its political orbit before finally absorbing them. These "ideal" conditions were simply not present in late 11th century Rumelia, where the Byzantine Empire (while in decline) was still strong; the population was strongly attached to the Imperial throne; and local provincial elites were still relatively loyal to the said throne. The Norman conquests - of Italy, England, Syria, Russia, etc. - only succeeded where the population was either disaffected, where the local elites were willing to cooperate, or where the state was unsettled. None of the conditions applied to 11th century Byzantium, where the locals and elites were strongly tied to the Emperor; as a result, any Norman 'conquests' are bound to be brief. Trying to merely create new kingdoms while disregarding preexisting very strong geopolitical realities is going to ensure that this is a very difficult scenario.
This is simply untrue, the Bulgarian did dislodge the Byzantines from 90% of the Balkans for generations as did unorganized Slavs in the 7th and 8th century and of course Turks in Anatolia.
Where did you come up with this idea?
Except the Avars and Bulgarians were reasonably close to seizing all of the European portion of the Byzantines...
Also the Slavs permanently changed the ethnic landscape of the Balkans, all Slavic populations today have something like 50% Slavic ancestry from Eastern Europe and most have even more, they were not temporary flukes.
Except we have plenty of examples of the contrary which you for some reason think are not valid. You made no effort to actually support any of this stuff, just empirically looking at Byzantine history disproves this.
Again where are you coming up with this stuff? The Ottoman conquest was all things considered quite fast, in 150 years they went from a small Beylik to controlling all of the Komnenian Byzantine empire.
Yeah sure, this is why the Byzantines were unable to remove the Turksfrom the recently lost Central Anatolia , why they lost Southern Italy to the Normans or why the Bulgarian were able to rebel as a coherent group, clearly the empire was not that united. Or why the Byzantines had to rely on crusaders and then lost Cyprus to them.
Again the Byzantine lost half of Anatolia and Cyprus without any of your arbitrary and made up requirements being fullfilled and where we have good evidence of that, like the fact Bulgarian identity still existed, you somehow ignore that.
"This is simply untrue, the Bulgarian did dislodge the Byzantines from 90% of the Balkans for generations..."
And of all of the invaders of the Empire, only the Bulgars were able to actually dislodge Byzantine control over settled populations and develop their own state tied not to Constantinople, but to Preslav
And even then, Bulgarian control until the modern era was only centralized around Thrace, the region least tied to Constantinople.
"...and of course Turks in Anatolia."
What you see as "Turk" never amounted to more than 3-4 beys and their entourages, mostly ex-Roman auxiliaries taking advantage of a civil war to occupy the citadels that were the center of control in central Anatolia; a common Turkish identity, defined by ghaza, never develop until the late Ottoman period. "Turk" was used for most of the Ottoman period to refer to any Muslim in Anatolia & the Balkans, regardless of what language they spoke - and the separation between Muslim Asia and Christian Europe is an astonishingly recent one. As recent as the late 19th c., the heart of Ottoman culture was in Rumelia while the heart of Christian Greek culture was in Asia Minor - it was population exchanges that changed that.
"Where did you come up with this idea?"
There is a reason why the Ottoman Sultan claimed the Roman Emperorship; it was to legitimize his standing in the Balkans, and legitimize the millet system he enforced (wherein each religious community was autonomous and held their own land). This was not an unusual tactic, and even the British would use similar strategies when governing India.
"Except the Avars..."
No they weren't - the Avars were never a serious threat to the Byzantines, and the time that they "came close" was when they had the assistance of a far more formidable state whom the Byzantines themselves viewed as equals (and who were simultaneously overrunning the entirety of Syria & Egypt).
"Also the Slavs permanently changed the ethnic landscape of the Balkans, all Slavic populations today have something like 50% Slavic ancestry from Eastern Europe and most have even more, they were not temporary flukes."
First, in the mediaeval world Europe was (more-or-less) thought of as one single imperium with local rulers, tied down to a Roman Emperor/Pope (in Constantinople or Rome). What mattered in the mediaeval Balkans was not some idea of ethnicity or dialect, but religion - all Christian Balkanites were considered Roman, with the only fissure thereof being their way of life (settled or rural). Speaking more directly about the Slavs, as mentioned they took over the least settled (as in urbanized) parts of the Balkans and were never fully independent until the 13th/14th centuries; there was no conflict, per se, between speaking a Slavic language and still identifying as Roman.
"Again where are you coming up with this stuff? The Ottoman conquest was all things considered quite fast, in 150 years they went from a small Beylik to controlling all of the Komnenian Byzantine empire."
Not really - the various states of the Balkans were only firmly pulled in the Ottoman orbit in the 15th/16th centuries, when the various nobilities there came to finally accept Ottoman overlordship after de facto independence (see: Ottoman conquest of Serbia, Wallacia, Moldavia, Croatia, Bosnia).
"Yeah sure, this is why the Byzantines were unable to remove the Turksfrom the recently lost Central Anatolia , why they lost Southern Italy to the Normans or why the Bulgarian were able to rebel as a coherent group, clearly the empire was not that united. Or why the Byzantines had to rely on crusaders and then lost Cyprus to them."
1. The Sultanate of Rum co-opted the same provincial elites of the Byzantine period, who only lost their power after the fragmentation (by which time the Byzantine Empire had itself fragmented).
2. Vis-a-vis Italy, the Normans once again co-opted the local elites (whose ties to Constantinople had been decreasing over time) and where the locals were disaffected.
3. Bulgaria, again, was largely an exception - and it's only proving my point when after Basil's 11th c. reconquest he had to rely on the local elites to administer the province. When, a century later, this was reversed the Bulgarian state once again reappeared.
4. Cyprus was lost after the fragmentation of the Empire, and - once again - done so first by a revolt of the provincial elites (who claimed the local pretender as Emperor), and then by Normans/Templars who (once again) co-opted the local elites in order to rule the Empire.
And of all of the invaders of the Empire, only the Bulgars were able to actually dislodge Byzantine control over settled populations and develop their own state tied not to Constantinople, but to Preslav
And even then, Bulgarian control until the modern era was only centralized around Thrace, the region least tied to Constantinople."...and of course Turks in Anatolia."
What you see as "Turk" never amounted to more than 3-4 beys and their entourages, mostly ex-Roman auxiliaries taking advantage of a civil war to occupy the citadels that were the center of control in central Anatolia; a common Turkish identity, defined by ghaza, never develop until the late Ottoman period. "Turk" was used for most of the Ottoman period to refer to any Muslim in Anatolia & the Balkans, regardless of what language they spoke - and the separation between Muslim Asia and Christian Europe is an astonishingly recent one. As recent as the late 19th c., the heart of Ottoman culture was in Rumelia while the heart of Christian Greek culture was in Asia Minor - it was population exchanges that changed that.
"Where did you come up with this idea?"
There is a reason why the Ottoman Sultan claimed the Roman Emperorship; it was to legitimize his standing in the Balkans, and legitimize the millet system he enforced (wherein each religious community was autonomous and held their own land). This was not an unusual tactic, and even the British would use similar strategies when governing India.
"Except the Avars..."
No they weren't - the Avars were never a serious threat to the Byzantines, and the time that they "came close" was when they had the assistance of a far more formidable state whom the Byzantines themselves viewed as equals (and who were simultaneously overrunning the entirety of Syria & Egypt).
"Also the Slavs permanently changed the ethnic landscape of the Balkans, all Slavic populations today have something like 50% Slavic ancestry from Eastern Europe and most have even more, they were not temporary flukes."
First, in the mediaeval world Europe was (more-or-less) thought of as one single imperium with local rulers, tied down to a Roman Emperor/Pope (in Constantinople or Rome). What mattered in the mediaeval Balkans was not some idea of ethnicity or dialect, but religion - all Christian Balkanites were considered Roman, with the only fissure thereof being their way of life (settled or rural). Speaking more directly about the Slavs, as mentioned they took over the least settled (as in urbanized) parts of the Balkans and were never fully independent until the 13th/14th centuries; there was no conflict, per se, between speaking a Slavic language and still identifying as Roman.
"Again where are you coming up with this stuff? The Ottoman conquest was all things considered quite fast, in 150 years they went from a small Beylik to controlling all of the Komnenian Byzantine empire."
Not really - the various states of the Balkans were only firmly pulled in the Ottoman orbit in the 15th/16th centuries, when the various nobilities there came to finally accept Ottoman overlordship after de facto independence (see: Ottoman conquest of Serbia, Wallacia, Moldavia, Croatia, Bosnia).
"Yeah sure, this is why the Byzantines were unable to remove the Turksfrom the recently lost Central Anatolia , why they lost Southern Italy to the Normans or why the Bulgarian were able to rebel as a coherent group, clearly the empire was not that united. Or why the Byzantines had to rely on crusaders and then lost Cyprus to them."
1. The Sultanate of Rum co-opted the same provincial elites of the Byzantine period, who only lost their power after the fragmentation (by which time the Byzantine Empire had itself fragmented).
2. Vis-a-vis Italy, the Normans once again co-opted the local elites (whose ties to Constantinople had been decreasing over time) and where the locals were disaffected.
3. Bulgaria, again, was largely an exception - and it's only proving my point when after Basil's 11th c. reconquest he had to rely on the local elites to administer the province. When, a century later, this was reversed the Bulgarian state once again reappeared.
4. Cyprus was lost after the fragmentation of the Empire, and - once again - done so first by a revolt of the provincial elites (who claimed the local pretender as Emperor), and then by Normans/Templars who (once again) co-opted the local elites in order to rule the Empire.
Last edited:
And of all of the invaders of the Empire, only the Bulgars were able to actually dislodge Byzantine control over settled populations and develop their own state tied not to Constantinople, but to Preslav
They didn't seriously claim Roman emperorship, only one or maybe 2 Sultans did and they never really used it in their diplomatic dealings. So what you said is just untrue.
The Avars took over Sirmium and multiple other Danubian and Trhacian cities and multiple times raided and took over regions as deep as peninsular Greece and obviously their Slavic allies ended up overrunning the Balkans."
No this is not true, the Bulgarians clearly developed their own identity and you can see how they tried to have religious autonomy as well with the issue of the autocephalous patriarchate, both sides recognized that there was some identitarian difference at play.
Except they clearly did NOT identify as Romans otherwise they wouldn't have had a Bulgarian identity distinctly surviving and you wouldn't see multiple Bulgarian rebellions in the 11th century, you are clearly pushing "Roman" identity on people that did not have it.
No, by 1485 or so the Balkans that were under Byzantine control in 1100 were already under strong Ottoman control, the Byzantines did not control areas beyond the Danube in 1100.
Again you did not show this, the only Ottoman rulers that claimed even if sporadically of being emperors were after 1453...
Yes internal disunity makes conquest possible but the idea that somehow the Byzantine empire was immune to internal problems during this period, that the empire was ethnically united or that only division can allow for conquest is simply unproven and you are not convincing by simply reiterating the same point without actually showing how your theory works in practice.
That's not really true, at least of England -- there was no popular or noble upswell of support for William, and the English state wasn't unsettled except for the fact that it was being invaded.
William's conquerors were quite brutal, at least in rehards to the Anglo Saxon Nobility- they called it the Harrying of the North for a reason. Thr weakness of a conqueror often compels him to cruelty, as the weakness of a young state requires harsh measures to crush dissent- Machiavelli made his name in describing this reality.
While I can see a marital alliance with Anna Komnene, and a possibly more or less willing submission of the city to the Normans in consequence (perhaps crowning her as empress and her Guiscard husband as imperial consort), it would not be a bloodless process, and almost certainly see coups and conspiracies in the capital while the Normans are off campaigning.
While I can see a marital alliance with Anna Komnene, and a possibly more or less willing submission of the city to the Normans in consequence (perhaps crowning her as empress and her Guiscard husband as imperial consort), it would not be a bloodless process, and almost certainly see coups and conspiracies in the capital while the Normans are off campaigning.
Very good post and also a good way to think of the atl. A major question that comes up for me is how does this change the mentality of the Holy See? The Holy See was already somewhat fickle in regards to the Norman feudatories in Sicily. Assuming these Normans conquer the Eastern Empire, the Holy See could do any number of options to see to relations with the Norman Emperors.
These were all peripheral regions. Rumelia and the City was the core of the Empire, with the largest and most loyal population. I have to agree: outright conquest of Byzantium would be very difficult. Not impossible... if the Emperor was a seriously unpopular screw-up and Guiscard played all the right cards. But otherwise, the Normans don't have the muscle to take the CIty, or to hold control of the Empire afterwards.
And I agree that the Norman-Byzantines would become Hellenized. For one thing, it might be necessary for Basileus Robert to be Orthodox.
Let me just say that I would LOVE to see this timeline done!