The umpteenth "Byzantine Empire survives" TL; clichés and pitfalls to avoid? Unique ideas to add?

[TheWitheredStriker]

A billion different "What if the Byzantine Empire never fell?" timelines exist, and I am all for them, plentiful as they may be. In fact, I plan to add another one to the pile; one that butterflies Manzikert whole. But I notice that many of these timelines (not targeting any TL on this forum specifically; moreso talking about stuff I've seen all over the internet) tend to reuse many of the same clichés, such as:

1) The lack of Crusades means the Crusader bois go elsewhere. So they go to Spain, kick Moor butt and destroy Al-Andalus early, then go on to launch a massive Crusade against North Africa while Byzantium takes Egypt back. By 1500, Islam in North Africa is completely extinct and the entire Mediterranean is 100% Christian. TL;DR huge Christian-wank and Islam-screw. Bonus points if this extra success in Iberia leds to Portugal staying in the Iberian Union for the rest of time itself and ceasing to exist entirely.

2) The Byzzies reconquer all of Italy without exception and make the Pope their bitch. 75% of the time this also involves a complete reunion of the Churches.

3) No or delayed Age of Exploration.

4) The Holy Roman Empire gets nae nae'd by the Byzzies and either collapses early or is forced to humiliate itself by publicly admitting that it is not the Roman Empire and that only Byzantium gets this honour.

5) The Byzzies reconquer nearly the entire Middle East up to Kuwait.

Plus a bunch of others.

I'm not particularly interested in repeating what has already been written down numerous times. I'm also not interested in cucking Islam as a whole and wanking Christendom to infinity and back. For this reason, I wanted to ask two questions. First: What clichés and pitfalls do you see in Byzantium timelines that I could avoid?

One thing I've already decided is that, as a secondary PoD in my TL, Al-Andalus survives up until the present. This keeps a Muslim state around in Europe and also safeguards North Africa. I'm on the fence about what's going to happen to Italy, but I'd rather not reunite the Churches, that's for certain.

Second: Which ideas and tropes have you rarely or never seen in Byzantium timelines, and do you think I could explore? As said, I hope to make this timeline stand out from the average Byzziewank you find on the internet. So in addition to things you've seen too often in Byzzie TL's, I'm also interested in hearing things you've seen too little.

Go nuts! I'm interested in ways to make this timeline stand out from the crowd.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I did something for the background of A Dream of Empire but looking back I am not sure now what?

Clearly no 1204 as the Komnenii survive a while but then I mention another dynasty

Focus on what they have not what they lost

End up conquering Persia

 

[CarlosTheAltHistoryGuy]

Western Europe says f-you to the Byzantines, leaving them in a similar situation to the Ottomans? It could be a way to compare how they worked

 

[TheWitheredStriker]

Western Europe says f-you to the Byzantines, leaving them in a similar situation to the Ottomans? It could be a way to compare how they worked

A mate of mine raised an interesting idea for a parallel to OTL, where Western Europe dislikes the Byzzies but France allies them to beat up the Habsburgs and divide Italy. Pretty interesting imo.

 

[Nuraghe]

the peoples conquered (mainly Europe and the Mediterranean) by the Rhomanoi end up abandoning their previous identities to accept the Roman one (even if this means totally changing their language, creed and political system) when Otl has demonstrated the opposite (see the difficulty in assimilating Bulgarians and the Slavs in general and the total rejection of the Roman identity in Italy less than 50 years after its reconquest, this at least from Naples up (because of the Gothic wars and the treatment given to the Latin-speaking natives by the Eastern Romans (which alienated them from Constantinople)

the crusaders are always crude double-dealing barbarians who are not there out of faith (when in reality the relationship worsened almost irreparably only after the third crusade, moreover the Norman contingent in the first crusade did not reassure Alexios, but under Manuel the relationship was normal (so much so that he was one of the very few Byzantine emperors appreciated in the West) were the problems of faith that caused divisions (see the many anti-Latin pamphlets that circulated, but if someone takes the time to write them it means that others support it instead)

finally marriages between HRE and Byzantium are impossible due to imperial ideologies (ignoring the failed marriage attempts between Louis II of Italy and the court of Constantinople, that of Zoe and Otto III (who died before marrying her) is the same Constantine VII porphyrogenitus who writes that the only barbarians worthy of marrying a Roman princess as their equal are the Franks

ah yes 1204 is only Venice's fault (when in reality we have both a political opportunity on the Venetian side, a latent feeling of revenge (massacre of the Latins and correspondence between Isaac and Saladin) as well as a lack of understanding of Roman politics on the part of the Crusaders ( who did not understand how a legitimate prince could be so overthrown without any serious reason at least from their point of view) as well as the promise that he too would contribute to helping the expedition ( Alexios IV)




P.s
For respons to Viking25
then it does not apply to Otto II because he had not failed the bride had already arrived, even if she was not a porphyrogenita as hoped (ergo the marriage had been accepted by Constantinople with the recognized title of Caesar, the first time that Liutopold was sent for seeking Anna's hand was discredited both because the proposal was unequal but also because Otto's title was not solid (after all he had been crowned emperor only a few years earlier, after all for almost 45 years there had been no recognized emperors in the West, moreover in the second Nicephorus was no longer in the solid position of Basileus but was in turn usurped so he could not refuse)

it is true that the crusaders went by religion in a crazy mission with a high risk of total failure (but for the Byzantines it could not have been true, they could not and did not want to believe it, given the very numerous Norman army present in the expedition (the precedents for they spoke plainly, there was something going on) then it's a common trope that crusaders were uncivilized barbarians and weren't really there for the faith (at least according to the Rhomanoi point of view)

 

[Elfwine]

Second: Which ideas and tropes have you rarely or never seen in Byzantium timelines, and do you think I could explore? As said, I hope to make this timeline stand out from the average Byzziewank you find on the internet. So in addition to things you've seen too often in Byzzie TL's, I'm also interested in hearing things you've seen too little.

This was a comment on timelines in general I made, but it brings up something that particularly fits Byzantine (alt)history:

There seems to be a dynamic in a number of things of alt-history things either being really easy, or really easily abandoned. Taking something that did happen OTL, Crete was taken by Muslim conquerors and the Roman Empire sent multiple unsuccessful expeditions over the course of the next century plus that each crash and burn for various reasons before finally at great effort retaking the island. How many timelines would have written it like that, instead of either Crete staying outside the Empire's hands or being recaptured by 850 at the latest?

A lot of alt-history colonization stuff seems to fall into this - if the first attempt fails its probably not going to have a fifth, but if the first attempt succeeds at all it just gets better (for the colonizers) from here with no need for a fifth expedition.

It would be nice to see more of an ebb and flow process, where there are times the empire might (say) control most of the Balkan peninsula or Italy but there are times it doesn't, instead of it being settled for good at some point in the timeline no matter whether the empire weakens or strengthens relative to its neighbors after that.

It would also be interesting to see less "totally assimilated to the point of losing national identities" (or not assimilated at all) and more that Byzantium was immensely influential without wiping out identities entirely - Bulgarians insisting that they're not Greek in the sense people in Scotland OTL insist they're not English is different than "inevitably the Balkan Slavs will break away with nationalism/nationalism doesn't even exist in this timeline.", and potentially more interesting.

A third thing would be more if at all possible on religion. To say the Church as in Constantinople was all of one mind on something, or that the Church and the Emperor were always in agreement on something, is at best only true some of the time on some issues. Even with all the power the Emperor could wield to force things, that's not the same thing as everyone thinking he was invariably right when it came to issues there. That feels like something very important, especially if you're exploring significant social changes within the state and often if talking about relations with the West or Muslim powers.

Beyond that, there's a lot of ways things can go, so making a suggestion like "cover this period instead of that one" would be "There are many good options."

 

[Evil Crusader]

People have already commented with a fair number of good ideas, but I feel I can give you a good idea by going, keep it organic and emergent.
The biggest pitfall, one that generally turns me away from Byzantinophile works, is that in most of them the Empire tends to be highly artificial - a mishmash of things people project on Byzantium. Its rich, deep religious dimension is usually almost absent or merely pretextual. Its grand strategy tends to be taken wholesale from elsewhere - sometimes Ottoman, sometimes Roman, never quite Byzantine. Its internal dynamic, that was fairly different from its contemporaries, either ignored or reduced to the 'Byzantine' stereotype of 'must have infighting'.
Depending on the starting period, here's many things that can be explored:
- early on, different approaches to the problem of Imperial restoration: as the wave of migration eventually wanes, it's almost a given that the ERE gets back to meddling in the West, but it can definitely happen differently than OTL; maybe they focus on the West more, to the dangerous detriment of the East, and it has interesting implications down the line. Maybe they don't, and treat differently the various Kingdoms; maybe the Pope doesn't end up as anybody's lapdog and simply never quite becomes a political player.
- after the Arab Conquest: early destruction of Bulgaria is one, but also a different balance in the seas (what if the Battle of the Masts went differently and the Byzzies remained a credible threat able to launch aggressive coastal raids much like the Saracens did OTL?). or maybe a different approach to Iconoclasm (it winning, with its far reaching consequences, or it quickly losing / being seen as undue Islamic influence and reinforcing the Nicene Front instead), in general situations in which the Imperial title remains more firmly limited to Constantinople (even without widespread territorial recovery, or with the Exarchate model proving wildly successful in retaining Byzantine presence overseas) is bound to have rich consequences.
- around the Macedonian Dynasty Era, different approaches to the internal matters (the beginning of the rise of the great families, for example, or more focus on peaceful development which often was scarcely known to the perennial embattled Empire), but also different ways to interact with the neighbors, from the technically possible but highly specific/circumstantial (such as a Romanophile Emperor deciding it's nigh time to reincorporate Rome in the midst of the saeculum obscurum) to more varied matters like, say, a different approach to autocephalies (for example, it being embraced and potentially exported to other distant countries that wouldn't mind the extra interrwining of secular and temporal power with more success than OTL) or to diplomatic matters (less focus on Imperial primacy and its immediate environs, and a more robust involvement in other countries' matters).
- after Manzikert, focusing on the role of the ever growing religious divide and, yet again, on determining Byzantium's role in an ever growing Mediterranean order with many minor and major actors that is often foregone but was a very relevant force in shaping Byzantine moves up to the end of Michael VIII's reign; there also is a side dish of potential economic discussion on the Empire's different route to feudalisation and its complex relationship with new maritime powers, eager to wrest control over trade but at the same time, potentially reliant on a large Byzantine state that brings stability and ease of commerce (or simply made compliant by the Empire retaining a naval dimension in the first place).
- beyond the Fourth Crusade, a different way to rebuild the state that focuses on an internal reflection over what Byzantium can clearly no longer be at least in the short term (the foremost Mediterranean superpower and the absolute guide to Christendom) in favor of a different identity that could bring the Empire, ever "Roman" in character (yet markedly different from any of its older incarnations), to survive and thrive in a modern world without it being a copypaste of the Ottomans but rather a living state that manages to find a new, successful equilibrium to rebuild itself and quite potentially become again the regional leading power.

Yeah, I definitely have many ideas. If you want details, do tell; just look at Byzantine history and the PODs and ask yourself, 'what is an interesting, but in character, direction I can take this situation to'?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

I'd like to see the development of a Greco-Armenian dual monarchy.

 

[Silver01]

the peoples conquered (mainly Europe and the Mediterranean) by the Rhomanoi end up abandoning their previous identities to accept the Roman one (even if this means totally changing their language, creed and political system) when Otl has demonstrated the opposite (see the difficulty in assimilating Bulgarians and the Slavs in general and the total rejection of the Roman identity in Italy less than 50 years after its reconquest, this at least from Naples up (because of the Gothic wars and the treatment given to the Latin-speaking natives by the Eastern Romans (which alienated them from Constantinople)

The sclaveni got assimilated when the empire put pressure on them via good diplomacy, transfers and warfare it just that people tend to forget the massive numbers even in Germany it took the germans centuries for them to Germanize the wends, the romans really only had control of Bulgaria and most of the balkans for about 160 years even then the romans did a good job of crushing local revolts and keeping the elite its just not enough time the idea that italy in 600 was anti roman seems weird when Olympius and other people in italy attempted to claim the purple

 

[Silver01]

First: What clichés and pitfalls do you see in Byzantium timelines that I could avoid?

One thing I've already decided is that, as a secondary PoD in my TL, Al-Andalus survives up until the present. This keeps a Muslim state around in Europe and also safeguards North Africa. I'm on the fence about what's going to happen to Italy, but I'd rather not reunite the Churches, that's for certain.

if your pod of 1071 or heck even 1060 then that's hard the caliphate has collapsed Ferdinand was already making the Taifas to pay tribute to him, even if you kill of Alfonso VI, the catholic position is stronger its likely the peninsula does get divided my best bet is who ever takes in the Maghreb are not as fanatical as the almoravids

 

[Domz]

Has anyone tried a 600-700 CE Byzantine Empire alternate history TL? Especially getting rid of Phocas or Justinian. Thersites the Historian's 2 hr video on tier ranking the Byzantine Emperors is a good introductory to this long ignored period of Byzantine history.

Another niche idea I have is to wank the Despotate of the Morea and make it into an Orthodox stronghold against the Ottomans in Greece for another few hundred years (kind of like the Transylvanians).

 

[Silver01]

early on, different approaches to the problem of Imperial restoration: as the wave of migration eventually wanes, it's almost a given that the ERE gets back to meddling in the West, but it can definitely happen differently than OTL; maybe they focus on the West more, to the dangerous detriment of the East, and it has interesting implications down the line. Maybe they don't, and treat differently the various Kingdoms; maybe the Pope doesn't end up as anybody's lapdog and simply never quite becomes a political player.

this is something when i started my timeline it was the standarad roman wank, but as learned more about the very early 7th century Byzantine history I saw how complicated things got instead of annexing a lot of land the romans in this time period loved vassals, and that is another thing in these stories the byzantines go full late republican and annex forgetting vassals or clients exist even nominally, and when there mentioned they remain so loyal that more so than the ghassanids of the otl

 

[Silver01]

Has anyone tried a 600-700 Byzantine empire alternate history TL? Especially getting rid of Phocas. Thersites the Historian's 2 hr video on tier ranking the Byzantine Emperors is a good introductory to this long ignored period of Byzantine history.

mine pod is 620s not Phocas but close the pod is from the early 7th century and i did reach the 10th century tomislav with pod of this era timeline sadly stopped in the 14th

 

[Domz]

mine pod is 620s not Phocas but close the pod is from the early 7th century and i did reach the 10th century tomislav with pod of this era timeline sadly stopped in the 14th

Nice! Although I myself would prefer to see a stalemate between Byzantium and the Muslims rather than snuffing out the Muslims entirely. Give Byzantium a stronger hand (but not too strong that it manages to wipe out Islam) and I think there's a lot of drama to be made there. I've got an impression that most TLs that wipes out Islam creates another less imposing, kinda boring, threat to oppose Byzantium.

 

[Silver01]

Nice! Although I myself would prefer to see a stalemate between Byzantium and the Muslims rather than snuffing out the Muslims entirely. Give Byzantium a stronger hand (but not too strong that it manages to wipe out Islam) and I think there's a lot of drama to be made there.

well technically here it was the Meccas the romans were a little to busy with a massive war in 624, I have been planning another timeline with a 654 pod with all that I know of now but that will stay as an idea for a long time , but to be fair Roman-Persian wars that will go on for centuries is all the drama one needs

 

[how]

Avoid the fall of Constantinople = starting the Age of Exploration trope. The Age of European Exploration began in the late 13th Century (see Vivaldi voyage) and Portugal had already colonised Capo Verde (well on their way to finding the fabled 'alternate route' to India) by the fall of Constantinople, also the trade was never 'cut off' instead tarrifs were increased and alternate routes already existed anyway, in the 15th Century there was no singular path for the silk road, that common trope also ignores the Venetian / Mamluk option for eastern trade.

In short surviving 'Byzantium' does not have any effect on new world exploration, provided events in Iberia are not altered.

 

[cmakk1012]

If your PoD is after 1000–hell, probably even if it’s after 850 or so—don’t have them reconquer Egypt, or at the very least don’t make it something they easily hold. It just doesn’t make sense for this massive, wealthy, and always resentful part of the Empire to become its breadbasket again after so long. If you’re talking about an earlier PoD, then I can buy it more easily.

 

[Domz]

well technically here it was the Meccas the romans were a little to busy with a massive war in 624, I have been planning another timeline with a 654 pod with all that I know of now but that will stay as an idea for a long time , but to be fair Roman-Persian wars that will go on for centuries is all the drama one needs

Or the Slavs/Central Asian nomads I guess.

 

[how]

If your PoD is after 1000–hell, probably even if it’s after 850 or so—don’t have them reconquer Egypt, or at the very least don’t make it something they easily hold. It just doesn’t make sense for this massive, wealthy, and always resentful part of the Empire to become its breadbasket again after so long. If you’re talking about an earlier PoD, then I can buy it more easily.

There is also the issue of the capacity to conquer Egypt, you could go as far back as the Twenty Years' Anarchy and say that is when returning to the pre Rise of Islam borders was no longer possible, at least not without a brilliant ruler and opportune timing, then there would be the matter of holding the land. It might have been more possible post 1000 than pre (850 is about when things started to turn around though) simply due to Basil II though only if he lived to be a million years old and had a legitimate successor, also he would need to find the time, Sicily and Italy was the next goal and gains had been made around Lake Van before his death so campaigning in Armenia and the Caucasus might be more likely than the Levant and Egypt, also the Seljuks would overturn gains in the Middle East anyway.

 

[Silver01]

Or the Slavs/Central Asian nomads I guess.

Yes and yes the impacts on central Asia are massive