Lol I'm working on the reign of Emperor Isaac II as we speak...
It's a goodun even if I do say so myself...
It's a goodun even if I do say so myself...
Would a surviving Byzantium matter?
- Thread starter Riain
- Start date
Morea was Venetian until 1714, so that gives us quite a big chunk of time to work with - let's say they take over the Byzantine Empire as a client state instead of actually taking over. The Emperors stay out of causing trouble with the Venetians (this may be a stretch) because they're awfully grateful to still have their crown. It's enough so that when Morea falls to the Ottomans in 1714, the Emperor goes into exile in Venice proper.
Of course, what Napoleon would do if he happened to take the true Roman Emperor into custody (assuming this isn't all butterflied away, natch) is anyone's guess. He'd likely take the crown for himself, but it's possible that the crown would be restored after the wars - just about when Greece is breaking away from the Ottomans. Interesting times.
Jaded_Railman
Banned
Well, the Renaissance itself wasn't a result of an influx of scholars, the influx of scholars simply represented a move of the Renaissance from the Aegean to the Adriatic. It started as an inter-play between a humanist (in the contemporary sense) school of thought in Mistra (capital of the Despotate of Morea) and the mystic school of thought at Mt Athos. And there was a whole lot else in terms of influence (translated books from the end of the Reconquistida, which were themselves Arabic translations of classical texts, for instance).
The gathering of ideas and a revival of classical thinking is pretty much going to happen regardless of whether or not Byzantium goes down. It simply changes where it happens.
Oy vey, have you heard of butterflies?
I'd wager so, based on their mention of butterflies in the second paragraph.
But saying "If this isn't butterflied away" doesn't make it any more plausible, I agree.
The most important place where classical knowledge was regained, helping spark the Renaissance, was actually Spain during the Reconquista, not the Levant during the Crusades. The Renaissance began long before the fall of Constantinople, so a surviving Byzantine Empire shouldn't hinder it. If anything, a 13th and 14th centuries with the Byzantines still a force, even if only occupying today's Greece, European Turkey and western Anatolia, could make the Renaissance even more transformative. In architecture, for example, imagine the reaction in Constantinople to the construction of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence? In a world where Byzantium is still a power, then the construction of a church that outclassed the Hagia Sophia would initiate a building war like the one that Versailles began. A longer surviving powerful Byzantium would be better able to take advantage of the Italian model of focusing on studying scientific and legal matters as opposed to theological philosophy, and thus would be able to contribute to the evolution of technology, even if in an adversarial way.
Riain
Banned
What about the military revolution that happened not long after Constantinople fell? Cannon were common enough by the early 1300s, there were cannon in the English army at Crecy, and a century later French cannon blasted the English out of France and knocked down the wall of Constantinople. But by then the Empire was rapidly declining so couldn't really take advantage.
Would with the Empire strong throughout the late 1300s and early 1400s would the Byzantines match the French siege train and the Janisary use of firearms? Would Constantinople be rewalled in the Trace Italliene fashion? How would it's Navy go, considering their experience with Greek fire, adopting to cannon? Or would the Empire, much like the Ottomans IOTL, gradually fall behind in these things, surpassed by smaller western Europeans? Would the productivity of the land and the strategic trading position keep the Imperial coffers full enough to buy cannon in competitive numbers?
Would with the Empire strong throughout the late 1300s and early 1400s would the Byzantines match the French siege train and the Janisary use of firearms? Would Constantinople be rewalled in the Trace Italliene fashion? How would it's Navy go, considering their experience with Greek fire, adopting to cannon? Or would the Empire, much like the Ottomans IOTL, gradually fall behind in these things, surpassed by smaller western Europeans? Would the productivity of the land and the strategic trading position keep the Imperial coffers full enough to buy cannon in competitive numbers?
There is an argument that the shear number of texts actually hindered the Renaissance, because the scholars that studied them held them in such high regard that they belived that the ancient texts held all the answers and they didn't need to find out whether the texts were actually correct or not...
In that case, what do you think caused the Renaissance in the first place? Why didn't it happen earlier?
well without a direct Ottoman treath, and indeed hundreds of years of bloody war, decimating the local political elite, and often anhialating the economy, eastern europe would definitley not apear as it is today, but would most likely be a number of rather strong, Germany sized states, Croatia for instance would be seriously larger and politically and economically more powerfull, Hungary would be even more powerfull than in OTL, unless butterflyes get involved, Bulgaria and Romania might well rivall major chatolic european powers, who knows what would come of Serbia, without Ottoman ocupation, or how a potential Yugoslavia would look like
also the interaction of islam and european christianity might be much diferent, and Constantinopol would be a important centre of european culture, where all kinds of influences and schools of thought would mix, and who knows what would come of it
imagine a renesance that happens in Constantinopol and involves and spreads to both europe and the midlle east
for all this not a big surviving bizant would be needed, olnly a small citty state, possibly similar to Rome, as it too would be a religious capital
maybe a few PODs during the crusades, maybe without the crusaders capturing Constantinopol
also the interaction of islam and european christianity might be much diferent, and Constantinopol would be a important centre of european culture, where all kinds of influences and schools of thought would mix, and who knows what would come of it
imagine a renesance that happens in Constantinopol and involves and spreads to both europe and the midlle east
for all this not a big surviving bizant would be needed, olnly a small citty state, possibly similar to Rome, as it too would be a religious capital
maybe a few PODs during the crusades, maybe without the crusaders capturing Constantinopol
Last edited:
And details of how it plays out. But broadly I agree. All I know about the interplay you mention is what you just said, but I'll take a stab and guess that this is the trigger point for what reached western Europe as the Renaissance neoplatonic challenge to the Aristotelianism of the schoolmen. (Right? Wrong? 'Not even wrong?')
That's a huge facet, in fact the core intellectual facet, but the first one I think of is visual art, because it is so visually obvious.
I don't know how it all connects to the intellectual debate, though they are obviously somehow related - this is also just the time that painters are starting to consciously think of themselves as 'artists,' e.g. signing their work. I've only read vaguely of any Renaissance style in late Byzantine art, but the name El Greco jumps out at me.In fact, a big part of the charm of a surviving Byzantium with a fairly late medieval POD is the idea of it fully participating in the Renaissance. One effect I would rather expect is a Byzantine cultural challenge to Renaissance Romanism. Architecture is the visual field to watch. Byzantines may regard themselves as Romaioi, but I don't see Byzantine humanist architects c. 1500 feeling the special need to sketch the ruins of classical Rome to find the roots of classical architecture. They'll find plenty closer to home, and plenty of argument over the place of later 'Byzantine' elements in neoclassical design. It probably will not look like Palladio.
Likewise, how does an Orthodox Church linked to a Byzantine state respond to the Reformation? Do Protestant ideas have any impact? Does Constantinople dangle anything in front of Henry VIII when he wants to break from Rome but not make a full theological break? And so on.
This is the big one I thought of, because it would be an extremely difficult nut for the Ottomans to crack.
Also, my sense is that if Byzantium is stabilized, the Ottomans, or an alternate Turkish power, is likely to look for more opportunities in other directions. If a Great Siege or two comes up short, as in the early Muslim period, or Vienna, do Ottomans or other Turks just keep banging heads at it? Maybe they decided to muscle the Moghuls aside and show how the professionals do it.
If the Byzantines restore their sea power, this just amplifies the effect, squeezing Turks largely out of the Med. In the 16th century, Byzantine fleets would be galleys with bow guns, probably very similar to OTL Venetian galleys. If they fight it out with Spain for control of Italian waters circa 1600, it will probably look like Lepanto. (Though big sailing ships were often used in conjunction with galley fleets in 16th c. Mediterranean war.)
The Byzantines may fall behind in the age of sail because of limited opportunity or requirement. The natural mission of the Byzantine Navy is control of the eastern Med and Black Sea. Suspending any really big butterflies for the moment, the Byzantines don't need a modern fleet till Napoleon shows up.
Actually it could be interesting if the Byzantines go into the Napoleonic era with a seriously antiquated fleet, rely largely on the British alliance in wartime, and are faced after 1815 with the need to define and design a modern navy. Could they be early adopters of steam? Steam meets major Byzantine requirements long before it met British requirements. Even 1820s technology paddle steamers would have advantages over sailing ships in Greek waters, and deficient steaming radius and poor seakeeping are not a big problem.
Riain
Banned
IOTL the Turks maintained a tactical advantage on land until about 1650, when things became even or tilted toward Europe with the military reforms of the 30 years war. It's pushing the realms of butterflies here but perhaps the Byzantines could benefit from thier closer contacts with Europe to cash in on these reforms themselves and use them in Asia Minor and the ME the way Russia used the to push east after 1650.
Without Constantinople, the Turks probably wouldn't have had quite the technological advantage they did OTL. I'd say for a Byzantine state to survive as any kind of regional power, you'd need it to look something like this:
This way it has absolute control of the Aegean Sea and the straits, and an important Black sea port, and has all of Greece so it has a decent population to recruit soldiers from when the need for defense comes. Either a no 4th Crusade POD or a far more successful post-4th Crusade POD (my personal favorite) can achieve this state.
This way it has absolute control of the Aegean Sea and the straits, and an important Black sea port, and has all of Greece so it has a decent population to recruit soldiers from when the need for defense comes. Either a no 4th Crusade POD or a far more successful post-4th Crusade POD (my personal favorite) can achieve this state.
Riain
Banned
That's something like what the Palegoi (spelling) had after they re-took Constantinople in 1261, so is a good start. I'd like to Romania added to that map, which would them eoncompass those people who saw themselves as Romans. This would be a good foundation for the era of the nation-state, which took shape between 1453 and 1492 in western Europe.
Philip
Donor
Palaiologos
Wallachia and Moldavia, yes. Not so sure about Transylvania. I think you would have to get the Bulgarians to play nice for this to work.
Though it doesn't look like it, this is substantially more than what Michael VIII had when he retook Constantinople. In this map the Empire has undisputed control over the Aegean islands and Greece, whereas much of it was still occupied by Latin states and Epirus in 1261. The Aegean and the islands were also dominated by Venice and Genoa, which made a BIG difference.