Our Fractured Crown: An Eastern Roman Timeline

This Byzantine'(which by 1453 could at most become a decent medium power)s impact on Mediterranean trade would not cause any meaningful difference to the Hundred Years War.
Would there be no difference? In 1453 otl the Ottoman Empire is ascendant and presided over most of the Balkans and Anatolia. If the Roman Empire is weaker than the ottomans otl there would already be a difference in trade as the Italian city-states would have different trade patterns with the Ottomans. Venice for one would be either stomped out of existence or have their power significantly reduced, while Genoa would either have more trade as an ally of the Rhomans or be pushed out of the Eastern med by the 15th century as the Rhomans would want control over the Eastern med. These factors mean that the Eastern Med is very different than otl, and as a result products from Anatolia would be very different than otl.

The Rhoman empire’s existence also means that Egypt would be directly trading with the European powers not through the Ottoman Empire (spices). This means Egypt takes a larger cut, which means either the spices are cheaper or they are more expensive. The lack of a powerful nation that protects the merchants of the sea (especially Muslim) also means that more pirates of various stripes would be more prolific. The presence of an Orthodox power where they were Muslim trade routes otl means that a lot of routes would be different.

Tl:dr: Nova Roma and the Ottoman Empire are very different countries with different circumstances.
 
There are butterflies, but I don't think the Romans are anywhere near a position to have that kind of impact on trade or the Italian maritime cities ("stomped out of existence or their power significantly reduced"? That's quite a task with a POD in 1328.) any time soon, or for their actions to directly influence Western Europe all that much any sooner.

Which does raise the question of how drastic the impact of butterflies is for the author - IMO, after a couple generations from the POD it makes sense that there's going to be some changes (no guarantee of getting OTL Richard II, for example - but that doesn't necessarily mean the HYW becomes only a 14th century conflict level changes).

But that's just a personal rule of thumb that 50-60 years down the road is a fair chunk of time for small changes to lead to possibly different things..
 
Last edited:
Would there be no difference? In 1453 otl the Ottoman Empire is ascendant and presided over most of the Balkans and Anatolia. If the Roman Empire is weaker than the ottomans otl there would already be a difference in trade as the Italian city-states would have different trade patterns with the Ottomans. Venice for one would be either stomped out of existence or have their power significantly reduced, while Genoa would either have more trade as an ally of the Rhomans or be pushed out of the Eastern med by the 15th century as the Rhomans would want control over the Eastern med. These factors mean that the Eastern Med is very different than otl, and as a result products from Anatolia would be very different than otl.

The Rhoman empire’s existence also means that Egypt would be directly trading with the European powers not through the Ottoman Empire (spices). This means Egypt takes a larger cut, which means either the spices are cheaper or they are more expensive. The lack of a powerful nation that protects the merchants of the sea (especially Muslim) also means that more pirates of various stripes would be more prolific. The presence of an Orthodox power where they were Muslim trade routes otl means that a lot of routes would be different.

Tl:dr: Nova Roma and the Ottoman Empire are very different countries with different circumstances.
I said “no meaningful difference to the Hundred Years War” and Burgundian state,is that clear?
 
There are butterflies, but I don't think the Romans are anywhere near a position to have that kind of impact on trade or the Italian maritime cities ("stomped out of existence or their power significantly reduced"? That's quite a task with a POD in 1328.) any time soon, or for their actions to directly influence Western Europe all that much any sooner.

Which does raise the question of how drastic the impact of butterflies is for the author - IMO, after a couple generations from the POD it makes sense that there's going to be some changes (no guarantee of getting OTL Richard II, for example - but that doesn't necessarily mean the HYW becomes only a 14th century conflict level changes).

But that's just a personal rule of thumb that 50-60 years down the road is a fair chunk of time for small changes to lead to possibly different things..
I think the romans would try to humiliate the Venetians due to 1204. They can’t let them be as the Venetians control parts of the Aegean and they got humiliated beyond relief there. Venice loses a lot of its influence if they lose the Greek islands/Adriatic which the Romans would try to take too. A Venetian-Rhoman war is inevitable and the Rhomans have to win the first conflict at least.
By the 1500s there are 200 years of divergences. Some wars have to be fought as socioeconomic and political considerations mean that some wars have to be fought, but the monarchs at least are siblings to their otl selves.
I said “no meaningful difference to the Hundred Years War” and Burgundian state,is that clear?
I disagree. Trade differences mean that monarchs may eat differently or have more or less money in their treasuries. This means that France is more affected as part of them are connected to the Med, meaning that the farmers farm differently and different volumes of trade. Thus the treasury will have more/less money, which directly affects the nobles and rulers of France. The Burgundian state should be affected less tho.
 
I think the romans would try to humiliate the Venetians due to 1204. They can’t let them be as the Venetians control parts of the Aegean and they got humiliated beyond relief there. Venice loses a lot of its influence if they lose the Greek islands/Adriatic which the Romans would try to take too. A Venetian-Rhoman war is inevitable and the Rhomans have to win the first conflict at least.
I think we're looking at two different things here.

I'm not convinced they'll be able to smash the Venetians in the near future. Rebuilding to the point of "1282 but with Anatolia more secure" is an impressive feat by the time of the POD, but it is a long way from being able to overwhelmingly defeat Venice, and no amount of need is going to make up for the very slim financial resources of the state compared to the days of the Komnenoi or earlier.
 
Last edited:
I think we're looking at two different things here.

I'm not asking why the Rhomans want to fight the Venetians, I'm not convinced they'll be able to smash the Venetians in the near future. Rebuilding to the point of "1282 but with Anatolia more secure" is an impressive feat by the time of the POD, but it is a long way from being able to overwhelmingly defeat Venice, and no amount of need is going to make up for the very slim financial resources of the state compared to the days of the Komnenoi or earlier.
True. That I meant is that Venice's power in the Aegean is not going to last. The Po valley should still be in Venetian hands (?)
 
While I enjoy the speculation, as well as the ideas that are put forward--as it gives me more of my own, I feel the need to state the fact that this is not a Roman Wank, and never will be.

There will not be some grand reconquest of the East, nor the armies of Constantinople banging on the doors of Roma itself. I intend to keep this timeline as realistic as possible within the confines of things. As well as this, in order to maintain my own sanity as well as some semblance of functionality the areas not directly affected by Rhomania's resurgence are not going to change much from OTL (the HYW is going to effectively go exactly as it did OTL, for example).

In reference to the talk on Venice? It will be chastised--and thoroughly at that.

For spoilers;

John V is the one to set the inherent world-view of the Empire for the coming centuries. His long reign, and policies, hammer into the psyche of the Romans what they already knew; the Near-East is their home, and wasting men and resources looking West is a foolish endeavour.

The farthest the Empire goes west in the Mediterranean via direct control is Malta.

It is in the reign of John V's successor, Manuel II, that Venice is put in its place--in the early 1400's.
 
While I enjoy the speculation, as well as the ideas that are put forward--as it gives me more of my own, I feel the need to state the fact that this is not a Roman Wank, and never will be.

There will not be some grand reconquest of the East, nor the armies of Constantinople banging on the doors of Roma itself. I intend to keep this timeline as realistic as possible within the confines of things. As well as this, in order to maintain my own sanity as well as some semblance of functionality the areas not directly affected by Rhomania's resurgence are not going to change much from OTL (the HYW is going to effectively go exactly as it did OTL, for example).
Sure. Affecting too much at once would be really painful to write out. Does Burgundy survive tho, which was the original question. I'm just giving out an example where the vast difference in the Eastern Med would affect way too much. After all, a resurgent Roman empire is very different than an ascendent Ottoman empire.
In reference to the talk on Venice? It will be chastised--and thoroughly at that.
ooh me like. Seriously though, after 1204 I can't see a scenario where Venice doesn't get punished. Sack of Venice?🙏 I'd like to see what would occur if Venice gets sacked.
 
In the west, the main thing for the Romans to do would be to secure the rest of Greece, Eprius and maybe reclaim the Danube border.

I believe that the best borders the Romans could have would be Basil II's border.
 
Yep. The Hungarians will be a constant nuisance tho, so maybe Croatia is taken too?

Yeah most likely.
The Empire is going to have enough problems keeping more than one ethnic group with a foreign language under their boot. It's nonsensical for them to expand into Croatia--which would necessitate the conquest of several populations such as the Serbs, which are known for their rebelliousness.

Not to mention the fact that it would make Italy and the wider HRE feel threatened to have the Romans sticking their spears up that far north.
 
The Empire is going to have enough problems keeping more than one ethnic group with a foreign language under their boot. It's nonsensical for them to expand into Croatia--which would necessitate the conquest of several populations such as the Serbs, which are known for their rebelliousness.

Not to mention the fact that it would make Italy and the wider HRE feel threatened to have the Romans sticking their spears up that far north.
true tho. maybe as an ally/vassal than an actual part of the empire. Would like to see the balkans all back in one piece. Maybe as a long term goal?
 
Speaking of the Balkans, well, without the Ottomans, the Bosnians don't adopt Islam, so any plans for their religious development going forward sans Islamization?
 
true tho. maybe as an ally/vassal than an actual part of the empire. Would like to see the balkans all back in one piece. Maybe as a long term goal?
The Balkans are too much of a mess to make one piece of territory. Just as Yugoslavia. We'll see how it goes--but I very much doubt it.
Speaking of the Balkans, well, without the Ottomans, the Bosnians don't adopt Islam, so any plans for their religious development going forward sans Islamization?
They'll likely go down the same Bosnian Church path.
 
The Balkans are too much of a mess to make one piece of territory. Just as Yugoslavia. We'll see how it goes--but I very much doubt it.
How did the Ottoman empire manage it then other than just straight up conquest? A stable Balkans would be very interesting though.
 
How did the Ottoman empire manage it then other than just straight up conquest? A stable Balkans would be very interesting though.
The Ottomans never fully conquered the Balkans, just most of it. They also relied on the Janissary programs as well as things akin to curb the Christian population. The Empire would be another Christian power--it doesn't have as much leeway over oppressing its disparate ethnic groups.
 
The Ottomans never fully conquered the Balkans, just most of it. They also relied on the Janissary programs as well as things akin to curb the Christian population. The Empire would be another Christian power--it doesn't have as much leeway over oppressing its disparate ethnic groups.
That's true, unfortunately. I'd think they would try to assimilate the Bulgar population and both succeed and fail at the same time. There's no way in hell they're assimilating the Croats tho. But the Rhoman empire is an empire, and I'd think being able to take down and assimilate the Turks would mean the empire would be able to assimilate the Bulgars at least.
 
That's true, unfortunately. I'd think they would try to assimilate the Bulgar population and both succeed and fail at the same time. There's no way in hell they're assimilating the Croats tho. But the Rhoman empire is an empire, and I'd think being able to take down and assimilate the Turks would mean the empire would be able to assimilate the Bulgars at least.
I've got very specific plans for Bulgaria that will unfold as the timeline goes on.
 
I've got very specific plans for Bulgaria that will unfold as the timeline goes on.
Such a statement is quite interesting, coming from the author and considering the current close relationship between TTL Bulghars and Rhomans.

As a side note, if Rhomania is undergoing any sort of resurgence, an accompanying population boom should happen too. Any news on that front?
 

Lexijag

Banned
If the byz can retake anatolia and hold Greece, perhaps Bulgaria then I see some of the following happening just naturally from this situation :
1 their power in the east forces a decline in venice. Veniceian wealth was based upon trade and perhaps parasitic usage of the ex byz state. A raise of byz means a decline of venice.
2 with the ottomans driven far from Europe. The byz should be vastly superior to eastern states as to gunpowder wepons. Same as the ottomans were in their great eastern conquests. So a natural expansion in the future into the middle east is a natural situation after they stabilize themselves.
3 population. The conquest of constanaople in 1453 relied upon substantial anataloian warriors. These same warriors were drawn from existing populations not new Turkish warriors. If byz owns anatolia many of these would be available for byz.
4 the initial ottoman state of part of the Balkans plus anatolia should provide the same power base as the ottomans had for their future power projection.
 
Top