Note: Although it's completed there still should have been other stuff I could've added or fixed, such as a few errors I've noticed even though its alternate history. Even with the modern borders being used by the end I haven't thought much of it if they would gain more land northern or if Byzantium would last in modern times, but if I ever wanted to change that then I'll have to go through the pain of exporting it again (so this is the best I could do). So far this could be one of the best projects I've ever made (but not perfect).
Also if I ever do another "alternative timeline", I might either do Classical Iran from 1st to 9th centuries or the "Holy German Empire" that was shown here. I might do a regular alternate history for the 2nd option though cuz I don't want it to last too long and take too much time editing.
I love this unique alternative timeline and with an interesting twist to how the "Roman Empire" ends. The only complain I have is that they would never change their term to "Byzantine" which was given by some historians in the XVI century to separate them from Early Rome.
Why the hell would greece become a thing in this timeline? This is possibly the most unreasonable event lmao. It became a thing in ours because the restoration of Rhomania as the greek people wanted wouldnt be something allowed by the world order at the time.
Roman was more of a national imperial identity, the people in Greece hold on to there Hellenic cultural identity so when the Roman Empire no longer the power it was and starts to collapse for sure a Greek revival movement would happen and even in this timeline a Hellenic renaissance would still happen leaning for the people to reclaim there ancestral heritage. Now in Anatolia the more diverse Greek ethnic groups like Cappadocian and Pontic Greeks and the rest of the Asian minor population would maybe still retain there Roman nationality since they wouldn’t see themselves more of a Greek but a Roman. So I can still see Anatolia remaining Roman they wouldn’t overthrow there emperor
@@MaXiMuS-u9knothing goofy about expansionist powers becoming rivals, regardless of their similarities. Byzantium fought against orthodox powers before, like Serbia and Bulgaria. Why would Russia be different?
It's good, but Greek identity would NEVER be revived in this world, I guarantee. There is no reason for it. The only reason Greek identity was revived so much in our world was because the great powers did not want a powerful state to replace the Ottomans, since in the 1800s when Roman identity died, a Roman state would want control of Constantinople and Anatolia. Also, this world's Byzantium would be extremely wealthy, powerful, and rich, unlike the Ottomans. The Ottomans suppressed innovation often, but the Romans were oftentimes the centers of innovation and far ahead of others technologically. The name "Byzantium" would also never be used. It's like calling Mexico Tenochtitlia. Roman identity didn't die until the 1800s and would never die or be replaced with Greek or Byzantine in this world. Edit: Why did the Byzantines not side with the Entente in this world? I figure that Russia would be their #1 ally forever, and I doubt the Bulgarians would ever forgive the Byzantines considering the things done to them. Basically, I think there is no incentive to join the war in the first place, and even if they did, they would ally the Russians and attempt to make gains in the Balkans.
@@James-cq2bj In our world, Hellenistic ideals (Greece aka Hellas in Greek) were revived because the Greek people wanted to establish a new common revolutionary identity against the Ottomans. Basically, "Greeks" only returned because of Ottomans. It would have definitely been called something like the Roman Republic in this world. Without Rome’s existence, Roman identity survived 400 years, so with it existing the whole time, and the pride of the Romans, it definitely would have stayed, also considering there was nobody to revolt against.
@@switzerland5777 I mostly agree with you, however, "Greek" was a term used by the west to refer to the Eastern Romans/Byzantines all throughout the Middle Ages. It wasn't an invention of the 19th century. Western fascination with Hellenistic Greece long preceded any Greek attempts at independence and was influenced by the Renaissance and Enlightenment. My line of thinking is that the country would settle with the name "Romania" after the Middle Ages, but in the 18th century onwards there would be certain philosophers and writers who would be idealizing the country's pre-Roman past. I could see a national/liberal movement popping up associating "Romanness" with tyrannical, backwards, autocratic government, and advocating the country change its name to Hellas, with traditionalists and Orthodox Christians opposing this.
@@stevej71393 it’s possible but I doubt it. no other country with a long history like Rome has changed their name in a similar way. For example, china retained the name Zhonguo even though it had only been monarchist for thousands of years, and even though Classical Chinese things are still romanticized in the east. Also, the west saying something is not Eastern Europe saying something. Germany is Deutschland. India is Bharat. Etc.
1:24:37 Albania wouldn't pop up because Greece wouldn't encircle these Ottoman territories. Serbian and Bulgarian gains would most likely be more limited as well
Would Albania or an Albanian identity and nation-state exist in a Byzantine timeline though? At least as we know it today? Because the north part, as well as the Albanian-majority region of Kosovo were once Serbian lands, while the southern part was Northern Epirus, part of Greco-Roman/Hellenic culture and history.
@@KingBobChad the thing is.. they didn't call themselfs that..they called themselfs Romans they indetified as Romans originally they were the Eastern Roman Empire..the term Byzantine Empire came from the western Empires of the time because they didn't want to accept them as the real New Rome and continuetion of the old Roman empire in general..because at that point everyone was trying to claim that they were the new rome and they was going against them for this reason and for being Orthodoxs..so thats why they called them Byzantium and Byzantine empire..but Byzantines always called themselfs Romans even the Greeks in the region they never said "well am greek you know" they said "am Roman" they identified as Eastern Roman Empire from start till the end.. its just that epithete stuck more..
Some monumental works regarding the Byzantine Greek Empire by three masters of Medieval History, include; Warren Treadgold; “A Concise History of Byzantium”, “A History of the Byzantine State and Society”, “Byzantium and Its Army, 284-1081”, “The Byzantine Revival, 780-842”. Gustav Schlumberger; “Un empereur byzantin au dixieme siecle: Nicephore Phocas”, “Byzance et les croisades”, “Récits de Byzance et des croisades”, “ Le siege la prise et le sac de Constantinople par les Turcs en 1453”. Sir Steven Runciman; “Byzantine Civilization”, “The Fall of Constantinople 1453”, “The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence”, “Byzantine Style and Civilization”, “The Last Byzantine Renaissance”. A historical and academic treasure.
One of the most thrilling historical novels set in the Byzantine Greek Empire during the last Siege of Constantinople, is “The Dark Angel” (original title Johannes Angelos) of prominent Finnish writer, Mika Waltari. Truly epic.
Cool vid, a few things I disagree with though: • With a surviving Eastern Rome, it’s debatable whether the Russian Empire as we know it would still form. It mainly existed in our timeline to try to fill the void left by the fall of the Romans to the Ottomans. Yes, there’d still be some sort of “Russian state,” but I’d doubt it’d be exactly the same as IRL. • The Empire would never change its name. Even if the outside world began referring to them as “Byzantium,” they themselves would likely always call their country “Basileia Rhomaion,” Empire/Kingdom of the Romans, until the monarchy was deposed. And even then, they’d likely still call themselves Romans no matter the form of government. • After conquering Egypt in the 1630’s, Rome would likely expand across North Africa. They’d likely also take advantage of the early fall of the HRE in this timeline by re-subjugating Italy - particularly the city of Rome, their former nucleus. Especially after being gifted Sicily and Naples by Spain. Basically, after conquering Egypt and the early fall of the HRE, the Eastern Romans would pull a Justinian 2.0 if they could. • While I do agree that the Enlightenment and Napoleonic Wars would likely stir up Republican sentiments in the Empire, it wouldn’t become “Greece.” The new nation would be referred to by the outside world as the “Byzantine Republic,” and the “2nd Roman Republic” by the locals.
Looking back from the project I made months earlier, I realized those mistakes even though it's "alternative". Many people didn't like the empire being renamed "Byzantium" by the 16th century and I understood it now, since it was mainly used after its fall to the Ottomans. Other errors I shouldn't have added was the Crimean war which shouldn't have happened in the first place. But what was more complicated to me was the first world war, either the Eastern Romans could've joined the Central Powers, the Entente, or stayed neutral. IMO the ending I chose wasn't good at all and many people had agreed, just I wasn't too sure Greek identity would be noticed in this timeline but stood with it anyways. Rhomania would've been the chosen name for the republic instead but there was already a Romania in this timeline, unless I decided to change it to like "Dacia" or something.
Honestly, if the eastern roman empire would done better after the fourth crussade and survived, it would have taken a very similar route to that of the ottomans, maybe even going as far as retaking territories like egypt, tunisia and even some southern italian states. Much like the ottomans, byzantium would have slowly declined due to the discovery of Americas and the improvement of sailing, making western european geography way better than the city of constantinople, specially once the brits start conquering much of India and the silk road gets dominated by them btw, i like that in the end republican byzantium is actually an state that recognizes itself as greek and not a weird kind of roman republic
Byzantines probably didnt even have a chance to secure Anatolia after 4th crusade, no way they would have any sort of ambition to take Syria, Egypt and the rest of North Africa. At this point in time, the Romans cared more about maintaining their power and not getting destroyed by neighbor then to fulfill some sort of Roman empire larp like its an EU4 game or something. If they somehow survived the 4th crusade at most they would be a regional power in the area
@@ninjacat8659 the empire wasn't immediately dead as soon as the 4th crusade happened, Nicea was still able to defend itself from the turks and defeated the bulgars latins and their rival states. The thing is that the emperors that followed after were terrible and there was also a civil war literally at the worst time possible I maybe exagerated a bit with the reconquering egypt and north Africa part but it's too hard to imagine the history of the middle east without the ottomans and reminder that they also began as a very tiny state that eventually ate out all of their fellow post-ilkhanate neighbours
@@hnfjdshkfjhdsjkgbfoujgipfd891 I mean, the Ottomans were turks, they had very good fighting abilities and prowess literally everywhere. Its not unreasonable to say the Byzantines could be able to recreate that, its just very unlikely and if were going as realistic as possible, even if the 4th crusade hadn't happened, at most they would stop at Syria and probably get pushed right back into anatolia I mean, sure, but the Byzantines are almost always fighting themselves. Thats kind of the main problem. it was the reason why Manzikert happened, why the Sack of Constantinople happened, and why the final nail in the coffin, the Civil war of 1341-1347, but at that time, even attempting to expand out of Anatolia isn't even a question for them, and fighting a hostile Serbia, Bulgaria and the hordes of Turkish Beyliks isn't a very favorable battle for them. And its not as if the Timurids magically go away. The Ottomans got pretty lucky to have survived the Timurids, I doubt the Byzantines would last long if they were invaded or had antagonized them, especially since the Byzantine's core at that time would have been in Anatolia, not mainland europe
No because the Turks who conquered had barely civilization before. So they would've been more successful. Same with the fall of Rome and Germanics owning the area for only a short while, whereas if West Rome was alive then they'd be a LOT more successful.
dude..Romans wasn't Ottomans..they were different..different philosophy you have to understand that they were Romans.. and what was the Romans best skill ??? to adapt no matter the situation to adapt and and try to do it better than everyone and also being Diplomatic... you thing that they wouln't start collonizing like the rest of the europeans of course they would... and of course they would have an unstopable Navy too.. Byzantium managed to be the strongest naval power at some point it wouln't be anything new to them..dont put them in the same category as Ottomans they wouln't do the same shit like them..different empire different pholophy they wasn't like the Ottoman sultans that were getting dumber and dumber by the age and the only thing they cared about was their harems lol..
@9:44 Please explain why Kavadh II gave all those territories back? That was just insane! Nothing short of a collapse would make them give up all those conquered lands just like that.
Me aimlessly clicking on the video: harmless alt-history Me after watching the video: I wish Eastern Rome never fell 😭 I’m invested in video map history, and this is something else
Интересное видео. Но 1:21:14 меня смутил: крымская война не началась бы из-за оскорбления христианских святынь, так как византия была бы православной страной, это раз. Даже если бы и началась, совершенно не ясно, га чей бы стороне она выступила: значит, английские, французские и сардинские эскадры не проникли бы через Босфор в Черное море.
I like how you made the Romans lose wars and territory here and there makes it more realistic, it makes the Roman’s struggles to remain on a map really interesting.
A few thoughts: -with a strong Byzantine Empire, Russia as we know it would not exist. Russian/Muscovite politics and culture were strongly shaped by the fall of Constantinople. The Crimean War certainly would not happen because the cause of the war would not take place. -I find it unlikely that Byzantium would conquer the Balkans and Hungary in the same manner as the Ottomans. There would simply be no rationale to do so. The dismemberment of Hungary was due to a combination of factors that would not be easily replicated in this scenario. Mediterranean expansion seems much more likely. -Byzantium conquering the Mamluks just like the Ottomans did, and then holding it for several hundred years is overly optimistic. The Arabs would have tolerated Christian rule much less than Muslim Turks, and the Coptic Christians would not have been very friendly either due to longstanding differences with the church in Constantinople. -Byzantine survival would have a huge impact on western European culture as interest in classical Greek and Roman culture and history expanded in the Enlightenment. Similarly, the lack of "The Terrible Turk" would have a huge political and cultural impact as well. -Byzantium would most likely take the name of Romania. Real life Romania would take a different name, perhaps settling with Wallachia or Vlachia. Also, "Byzantium/Byzantine" is an anachronism that would never have been used historically.
The most unlikely thing here is the existence of Illyria. Albanians, even if most likely to descend from Illyrians, really stopped calling themselves that, especially with the existence of an Albanian principality (Arbanon) under an Anjou king. Even so, they would NEVER have the manpower to go all the way to Belgrade, Bosnia and Srem the way they did in the 1400s.
I like that even in this timeline the last emperor of the Eastern Roman empire shares names with the first. And the founder of this new roman republic also bears the name Constantine.
The Eastern Roman Empire wouldnt have lost so often later on, if they really survived untill the the 1700's with all their knowledge, they would have been THE worlds greatest superpower, they would have changed ww1 a lot, the ERE isnt the sick man of europe after all.
I mean, when the byzantines fell they were 1000-2000 (depending on how you count it) years old, i doubt age would play much of a significant factor in their survival
I kinda doubt that the Romanian principalities and the concept of Romania as a whole would exist in this timeline seeing how the eastern romans still exist technically. Not sure though
The Romanians descend from the Latin side of Eastern Rome, which was mostly cut off by the Slavic invasions. Eastern Rome would, by the point of formation of the Romanian principalities, have been primarily Hellenic. Although both Greeks and Romanians still held on to their version of romanhood, they would still have perceived each other as foreigners after that much time separated, even in this timeline. I think it would make sense that Romanians would still pursue their independence, considering Byzantium seems to treat them as Vlach vassals instead of fellow Romans.
Doubtful, due to their long standing cultural resistance, while trying to preserve their identity. (One thing that did annoy me in the video is why does Albania take North Epirus if it is Guaranteed to be 100% Hellenic in this Timeline?)
I mean.... nothing happened to change the world drastically. The crusades still happened, leading to the teutonic order still conquering the baltics and becoming prussia and nothing else I think would have changed the timeline.
Мне кажется, что хорошим альтернативным сюжетом стала бы буржуазная революция в Византии, подобная Французской революции и произошедшая под её влиянием. Появление греческого национализма сбросило бы римские регалии, как отсталые и архаичные, страна стала бы называться Греческой Империей. Также интересно было, если бы Наполеон покорил Византию и разрушил там старые институты, как это было в Священной Римской Империи, и создал вместо старой Восточной Римской Византии Цисбалканскую, Балкано-Анатолийскую или Греческую республику. Любопытно то, что Византия в вашем сценарии во многом повторяет судьбу Османской Империи. Географическое положение очень влияет на историю государства и по сути судьба Османской Империи - это естественный и логичный путь Византии, если бы не упадок после IV крестового похода. Османы заняли пустующее место и их сердцем стала зона проливов.
I wonder if you can make an all months version of all roman-germanic wars like you did regarding roman-persian wars. That would be very beautiful to see
Was good until the first World War. I disagree with the notion that everything has to go to the liberal democratic direction. Especially if something like Byzantium survives for so long. It takes 1 uprising of the "wrong side" in America or Britain and liberalism is finished. Alt-history rarely depicts this and instead they keep lots of stuff similar. Still, good work.
WW1 borders way too similar to OTL, especially with both Austria (why is austria so large) and Germany (doubt they would form like that anyways, prussia only happened because the ERE fell) also romania existing is odd, wouldn't they be called something like Dacia? I mean, the ERE called themselves Rhomania anyways. Also colonization would look wayyy different or wouldn't happen at all if the Romans still existed. WW1 would never happen, the closest would be a great war esqu scenario if European powers somehow still became ontop, also the Romans would never call themselves "Byzantines", let alone "Greece". Realistically, if they still existed they'd name themselves Romania or something similar to that. Also they wouldn't be as powerful as portrayed in the video. By a certain point you're kind of conflating the Byzantines and Ottomans together and forgetting they were both different states and entities. Its a pipe dream for them to ever reclaim Syria, let alone all of Egypt and then push up into Hungary and Romania. Also Safavids forming is interesting. Dont know much of Persian history but I doubt they would form at all. Anyways, other than, its still a really good video. I love seeing alternative history of different empires, especially the Byzantines. Its really nice to see how creative people can be, keep up the good work brother 💯💯
@@yazovgaming I mean, yeah, but the point of alt history is to be alternative history, it's not necessary supposed to be too realistic, because alot of things happen OTL that realistically should never have happened or had very small chances too Many of these videos are too afraid to try something different, they only feel comfortable changing the past but when it comes to the present they just fall back on what's already there instead of using theory imagination and creating an entirely new timeline that has some basis in reality
Regarding "Dacia". That name stopped being used in late antiquity when the Dacians as a distinct people vanished from history. This scenario is not that different from real life in the middle ages. The Romanians would probably still identify as Romans, and call their land Romania. The Greeks would call their empire Rhomania as well, and they would refer to Romanians as Vlachs and their land Wallachia, just like in reality.
Why is there not a single clash with the Habsburgs and Venice and an alliance with the Safavids in 1739? Byzantium had a very weak fleet, why did it include islands?! But the main question is why the eastern territories were not captured by the Mongols: Hulagu and Timur? Especially Timur, because for him the destruction of Byzantium and its population (yes, genocide) means gaining absolute authority in the Islamic world and restoring the Caliphate.
9:44 I think Eranshahr should be allowed to keep some territory because after all, they have made Byzantine miserable, but giving back all the territory like that is not right at all.
Российская империя ни коода бы не воевала с винзантией они были бы союзникам и в первой мировой византия бы выступила против австрии за контроль на балканах
Bro wouldnt the republic of greece at the end of the video still be roman as like they were byzantium or eastern rome but like, they just now call themselves greece? They would still be roman.
The only aspect that I can respect about the work (which is otherwise confusing, sterile on a figurative, imaginative and creative level on a historical level) that doesn't even arouse interest... I point out that the only positive point that you have made with this video is "the music" (although it is still a copy and paste). But the rest, and the fantasy of telling that story is pure contempt for history, by not including and despising the history of a country so important in the history of the world, such as the Spain of the “Austrias “hasburgs”and the (bourbons), from the Middle Ages, with the reconquest and the expulsion of the Muslims from the Iberian Peninsula, through the influence that the discovery of America had in Europe with the decisive influence, at a strategic and geopolitical level that it had on the entire continent and therefore, in all the nations of Europe, and above all it is unforgivable with how decisive and influential was the Emperor Charles I of Spain and (V) fifth of Germany, (Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire), which you do not name at any time... nor be not even the fantasy that Philip II, king of the Spanish Habsburgs and king of Spain, had been born… (It is contemptuous towards Spain and absurd to ignore it in the history you have made…)… and without naming and excluding the 30 years war between Catholicism and Protestantism and ignoring Spain in the corresponding part that it was and in the relationship with Austria and until the 18th century.
The vid is a bit too slow. It was too slow even when I increased the speed to 2x. Romania would most likely not exist because the official name of the Roman Empire was Romania. This was also the name the Greek insurgents used in XIX century. I guess South Italy, Crimea and the coast up to Danube Delta could still be the part of the Empire till the end because of strong Greek ethnic presence.
Note: Although it's completed there still should have been other stuff I could've added or fixed, such as a few errors I've noticed even though its alternate history. Even with the modern borders being used by the end I haven't thought much of it if they would gain more land northern or if Byzantium would last in modern times, but if I ever wanted to change that then I'll have to go through the pain of exporting it again (so this is the best I could do). So far this could be one of the best projects I've ever made (but not perfect).
Also if I ever do another "alternative timeline", I might either do Classical Iran from 1st to 9th centuries or the "Holy German Empire" that was shown here. I might do a regular alternate history for the 2nd option though cuz I don't want it to last too long and take too much time editing.
@@kamasick4632 Will you make an every month video next?
@@kamasick4632 nah the alternative byzantine empire looks great mate. You can literally keep that video. 👌🏻😊
I love this unique alternative timeline and with an interesting twist to how the "Roman Empire" ends. The only complain I have is that they would never change their term to "Byzantine" which was given by some historians in the XVI century to separate them from Early Rome.
The author of the video put it there for convenience
Why the hell would greece become a thing in this timeline? This is possibly the most unreasonable event lmao. It became a thing in ours because the restoration of Rhomania as the greek people wanted wouldnt be something allowed by the world order at the time.
I find it more goofy that Russia is an enemy of Byzantium. If anything they'd be close allies
Roman was more of a national imperial identity, the people in Greece hold on to there Hellenic cultural identity so when the Roman Empire no longer the power it was and starts to collapse for sure a Greek revival movement would happen and even in this timeline a Hellenic renaissance would still happen leaning for the people to reclaim there ancestral heritage. Now in Anatolia the more diverse Greek ethnic groups like Cappadocian and Pontic Greeks and the rest of the Asian minor population would maybe still retain there Roman nationality since they wouldn’t see themselves more of a Greek but a Roman. So I can still see Anatolia remaining Roman they wouldn’t overthrow there emperor
@@MaXiMuS-u9kMaybe they become rivals over who would be the hegemon of the Orthodox world
@@MaXiMuS-u9knothing goofy about expansionist powers becoming rivals, regardless of their similarities.
Byzantium fought against orthodox powers before, like Serbia and Bulgaria. Why would Russia be different?
In an odd twist, a part of Rome returns back to a republic after 2000 years
Maybe not forever 😉
Til a new Caesar appears
@@ruin1619and then a new Augustus appears
It's good, but Greek identity would NEVER be revived in this world, I guarantee. There is no reason for it. The only reason Greek identity was revived so much in our world was because the great powers did not want a powerful state to replace the Ottomans, since in the 1800s when Roman identity died, a Roman state would want control of Constantinople and Anatolia. Also, this world's Byzantium would be extremely wealthy, powerful, and rich, unlike the Ottomans. The Ottomans suppressed innovation often, but the Romans were oftentimes the centers of innovation and far ahead of others technologically. The name "Byzantium" would also never be used. It's like calling Mexico Tenochtitlia. Roman identity didn't die until the 1800s and would never die or be replaced with Greek or Byzantine in this world.
Edit: Why did the Byzantines not side with the Entente in this world? I figure that Russia would be their #1 ally forever, and I doubt the Bulgarians would ever forgive the Byzantines considering the things done to them. Basically, I think there is no incentive to join the war in the first place, and even if they did, they would ally the Russians and attempt to make gains in the Balkans.
That Rome to Greece is probably just a regionalization republicanism thing, like how Ottoman Empire transitioned to Türkiye.
@@James-cq2bj In our world, Hellenistic ideals (Greece aka Hellas in Greek) were revived because the Greek people wanted to establish a new common revolutionary identity against the Ottomans. Basically, "Greeks" only returned because of Ottomans. It would have definitely been called something like the Roman Republic in this world. Without Rome’s existence, Roman identity survived 400 years, so with it existing the whole time, and the pride of the Romans, it definitely would have stayed, also considering there was nobody to revolt against.
@@switzerland5777 I mostly agree with you, however, "Greek" was a term used by the west to refer to the Eastern Romans/Byzantines all throughout the Middle Ages. It wasn't an invention of the 19th century. Western fascination with Hellenistic Greece long preceded any Greek attempts at independence and was influenced by the Renaissance and Enlightenment. My line of thinking is that the country would settle with the name "Romania" after the Middle Ages, but in the 18th century onwards there would be certain philosophers and writers who would be idealizing the country's pre-Roman past. I could see a national/liberal movement popping up associating "Romanness" with tyrannical, backwards, autocratic government, and advocating the country change its name to Hellas, with traditionalists and Orthodox Christians opposing this.
@@stevej71393 it’s possible but I doubt it. no other country with a long history like Rome has changed their name in a similar way. For example, china retained the name Zhonguo even though it had only been monarchist for thousands of years, and even though Classical Chinese things are still romanticized in the east. Also, the west saying something is not Eastern Europe saying something. Germany is Deutschland. India is Bharat. Etc.
@@James-cq2bj Probably the case and Konstantinos is something like the Greek Ataturk.
1:24:37 Albania wouldn't pop up because Greece wouldn't encircle these Ottoman territories. Serbian and Bulgarian gains would most likely be more limited as well
Would Albania or an Albanian identity and nation-state exist in a Byzantine timeline though? At least as we know it today? Because the north part, as well as the Albanian-majority region of Kosovo were once Serbian lands, while the southern part was Northern Epirus, part of Greco-Roman/Hellenic culture and history.
Me casually enjoying the video:
Him: 'the name byzantine began to be officially used'
me: thats the part where you lose me
me reading this:
me:
you:
me again:
you:
"We've been calling ourselves Romans for centuries, but just for the sake of it, let's give our nation Constantinople's old name instead."
@@CadetGriffin ngl byzantines is a wasted name since the city of Byzantium had nothing to do with the Romans. Constantinian Empire would be better
@@KingBobChad the thing is.. they didn't call themselfs that..they called themselfs Romans they indetified as Romans originally they were the Eastern Roman Empire..the term Byzantine Empire came from the western Empires of the time because they didn't want to accept them as the real New Rome and continuetion of the old Roman empire in general..because at that point everyone was trying to claim that they were the new rome and they was going against them for this reason and for being Orthodoxs..so thats why they called them Byzantium and Byzantine empire..but Byzantines always called themselfs Romans even the Greeks in the region they never said "well am greek you know" they said "am Roman" they identified as Eastern Roman Empire from start till the end.. its just that epithete stuck more..
I love this video! I was speeding it though.
Some monumental works regarding the Byzantine Greek Empire by three masters of Medieval History, include;
Warren Treadgold;
“A Concise History of Byzantium”,
“A History of the Byzantine State and Society”,
“Byzantium and Its Army, 284-1081”,
“The Byzantine Revival, 780-842”.
Gustav Schlumberger;
“Un empereur byzantin au dixieme siecle: Nicephore Phocas”,
“Byzance et les croisades”,
“Récits de Byzance et des croisades”,
“ Le siege la prise et le sac de Constantinople par les Turcs en 1453”.
Sir Steven Runciman;
“Byzantine Civilization”,
“The Fall of Constantinople 1453”,
“The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence”,
“Byzantine Style and Civilization”,
“The Last Byzantine Renaissance”.
A historical and academic treasure.
not bad! i hope you continue making alternative histories.
One of the most thrilling historical novels set in the Byzantine Greek Empire during the last Siege of Constantinople, is “The Dark Angel” (original title Johannes Angelos) of prominent Finnish writer, Mika Waltari.
Truly epic.
Cool vid, a few things I disagree with though:
• With a surviving Eastern Rome, it’s debatable whether the Russian Empire as we know it would still form. It mainly existed in our timeline to try to fill the void left by the fall of the Romans to the Ottomans. Yes, there’d still be some sort of “Russian state,” but I’d doubt it’d be exactly the same as IRL.
• The Empire would never change its name. Even if the outside world began referring to them as “Byzantium,” they themselves would likely always call their country “Basileia Rhomaion,” Empire/Kingdom of the Romans, until the monarchy was deposed. And even then, they’d likely still call themselves Romans no matter the form of government.
• After conquering Egypt in the 1630’s, Rome would likely expand across North Africa. They’d likely also take advantage of the early fall of the HRE in this timeline by re-subjugating Italy - particularly the city of Rome, their former nucleus. Especially after being gifted Sicily and Naples by Spain. Basically, after conquering Egypt and the early fall of the HRE, the Eastern Romans would pull a Justinian 2.0 if they could.
• While I do agree that the Enlightenment and Napoleonic Wars would likely stir up Republican sentiments in the Empire, it wouldn’t become “Greece.” The new nation would be referred to by the outside world as the “Byzantine Republic,” and the “2nd Roman Republic” by the locals.
Looking back from the project I made months earlier, I realized those mistakes even though it's "alternative". Many people didn't like the empire being renamed "Byzantium" by the 16th century and I understood it now, since it was mainly used after its fall to the Ottomans.
Other errors I shouldn't have added was the Crimean war which shouldn't have happened in the first place. But what was more complicated to me was the first world war, either the Eastern Romans could've joined the Central Powers, the Entente, or stayed neutral. IMO the ending I chose wasn't good at all and many people had agreed, just I wasn't too sure Greek identity would be noticed in this timeline but stood with it anyways. Rhomania would've been the chosen name for the republic instead but there was already a Romania in this timeline, unless I decided to change it to like "Dacia" or something.
Also they would probably sent their army to visit Bagdad and the rest of Irak.
@@ruin1619Yeah. Basically a surviving, large Byzantium would take the place of the Ottomans in terms of territory
44:00 is such a surreal part of the video. If only the crusades had a figure like Nicholas I...
Honestly, if the eastern roman empire would done better after the fourth crussade and survived, it would have taken a very similar route to that of the ottomans, maybe even going as far as retaking territories like egypt, tunisia and even some southern italian states.
Much like the ottomans, byzantium would have slowly declined due to the discovery of Americas and the improvement of sailing, making western european geography way better than the city of constantinople, specially once the brits start conquering much of India and the silk road gets dominated by them
btw, i like that in the end republican byzantium is actually an state that recognizes itself as greek and not a weird kind of roman republic
Byzantines probably didnt even have a chance to secure Anatolia after 4th crusade, no way they would have any sort of ambition to take Syria, Egypt and the rest of North Africa. At this point in time, the Romans cared more about maintaining their power and not getting destroyed by neighbor then to fulfill some sort of Roman empire larp like its an EU4 game or something. If they somehow survived the 4th crusade at most they would be a regional power in the area
@@ninjacat8659 the empire wasn't immediately dead as soon as the 4th crusade happened, Nicea was still able to defend itself from the turks and defeated the bulgars latins and their rival states.
The thing is that the emperors that followed after were terrible and there was also a civil war literally at the worst time possible
I maybe exagerated a bit with the reconquering egypt and north Africa part but it's too hard to imagine the history of the middle east without the ottomans and reminder that they also began as a very tiny state that eventually ate out all of their fellow post-ilkhanate neighbours
@@hnfjdshkfjhdsjkgbfoujgipfd891 I mean, the Ottomans were turks, they had very good fighting abilities and prowess literally everywhere. Its not unreasonable to say the Byzantines could be able to recreate that, its just very unlikely and if were going as realistic as possible, even if the 4th crusade hadn't happened, at most they would stop at Syria and probably get pushed right back into anatolia
I mean, sure, but the Byzantines are almost always fighting themselves. Thats kind of the main problem. it was the reason why Manzikert happened, why the Sack of Constantinople happened, and why the final nail in the coffin, the Civil war of 1341-1347, but at that time, even attempting to expand out of Anatolia isn't even a question for them, and fighting a hostile Serbia, Bulgaria and the hordes of Turkish Beyliks isn't a very favorable battle for them. And its not as if the Timurids magically go away. The Ottomans got pretty lucky to have survived the Timurids, I doubt the Byzantines would last long if they were invaded or had antagonized them, especially since the Byzantine's core at that time would have been in Anatolia, not mainland europe
No because the Turks who conquered had barely civilization before. So they would've been more successful. Same with the fall of Rome and Germanics owning the area for only a short while, whereas if West Rome was alive then they'd be a LOT more successful.
dude..Romans wasn't Ottomans..they were different..different philosophy you have to understand that they were Romans.. and what was the Romans best skill ??? to adapt no matter the situation to adapt and and try to do it better than everyone and also being Diplomatic... you thing that they wouln't start collonizing like the rest of the europeans of course they would... and of course they would have an unstopable Navy too.. Byzantium managed to be the strongest naval power at some point it wouln't be anything new to them..dont put them in the same category as Ottomans they wouln't do the same shit like them..different empire different pholophy they wasn't like the Ottoman sultans that were getting dumber and dumber by the age and the only thing they cared about was their harems lol..
@9:44 Please explain why Kavadh II gave all those territories back? That was just insane! Nothing short of a collapse would make them give up all those conquered lands just like that.
That's like annexing 78% of your enemy and suddenly asking for peace, like wtf
Nerfing is needed to make timelines unfortunately
This is literally what happened in real life during the campaign of heraclius.
We love romans even in alternative scenarios thank you for your video
🇮🇷❤️🇬🇷🇮🇹
I like how this video paid homage to the prophecy that Byzantium would begin and end with an Emperor Constantine
Awesome video!
Me aimlessly clicking on the video: harmless alt-history
Me after watching the video: I wish Eastern Rome never fell 😭
I’m invested in video map history, and this is something else
Интересное видео. Но 1:21:14 меня смутил: крымская война не началась бы из-за оскорбления христианских святынь, так как византия была бы православной страной, это раз. Даже если бы и началась, совершенно не ясно, га чей бы стороне она выступила: значит, английские, французские и сардинские эскадры не проникли бы через Босфор в Черное море.
Orthodox people will never start a religious conflict, right?
Right?
Damn bro this is amazing
does anyone know the name of the song at 48:42?
Total War Attila, it’s in the description.
I like how you made the Romans lose wars and territory here and there makes it more realistic, it makes the Roman’s struggles to remain on a map really interesting.
Hey, what app do u use to do this mapping?
@@Vaniabsales5_424 windows paint and paint .net for slides, premiere pro for editing
@@kamasick4632 its my another account, thanks
I really like. good job. the music is also good. Couldn't you create an alternative chronology of the Western Empire like this too?
A few thoughts:
-with a strong Byzantine Empire, Russia as we know it would not exist. Russian/Muscovite politics and culture were strongly shaped by the fall of Constantinople. The Crimean War certainly would not happen because the cause of the war would not take place.
-I find it unlikely that Byzantium would conquer the Balkans and Hungary in the same manner as the Ottomans. There would simply be no rationale to do so. The dismemberment of Hungary was due to a combination of factors that would not be easily replicated in this scenario. Mediterranean expansion seems much more likely.
-Byzantium conquering the Mamluks just like the Ottomans did, and then holding it for several hundred years is overly optimistic. The Arabs would have tolerated Christian rule much less than Muslim Turks, and the Coptic Christians would not have been very friendly either due to longstanding differences with the church in Constantinople.
-Byzantine survival would have a huge impact on western European culture as interest in classical Greek and Roman culture and history expanded in the Enlightenment. Similarly, the lack of "The Terrible Turk" would have a huge political and cultural impact as well.
-Byzantium would most likely take the name of Romania. Real life Romania would take a different name, perhaps settling with Wallachia or Vlachia. Also, "Byzantium/Byzantine" is an anachronism that would never have been used historically.
The most unlikely thing here is the existence of Illyria. Albanians, even if most likely to descend from Illyrians, really stopped calling themselves that, especially with the existence of an Albanian principality (Arbanon) under an Anjou king. Even so, they would NEVER have the manpower to go all the way to Belgrade, Bosnia and Srem the way they did in the 1400s.
I like that even in this timeline the last emperor of the Eastern Roman empire shares names with the first. And the founder of this new roman republic also bears the name Constantine.
this is amazing. I love your mapping style
The madman, he did it
What is music 44:00?
It was a wonderful introduction and clearly explaining...thanks for sharing
Great video! Wow!
33:10 personal timestamp
The Eastern Roman Empire wouldnt have lost so often later on, if they really survived untill the the 1700's with all their knowledge, they would have been THE worlds greatest superpower, they would have changed ww1 a lot, the ERE isnt the sick man of europe after all.
I mean, when the byzantines fell they were 1000-2000 (depending on how you count it) years old, i doubt age would play much of a significant factor in their survival
Awesome video
I kinda doubt that the Romanian principalities and the concept of Romania as a whole would exist in this timeline seeing how the eastern romans still exist technically. Not sure though
The Romanians descend from the Latin side of Eastern Rome, which was mostly cut off by the Slavic invasions. Eastern Rome would, by the point of formation of the Romanian principalities, have been primarily Hellenic. Although both Greeks and Romanians still held on to their version of romanhood, they would still have perceived each other as foreigners after that much time separated, even in this timeline. I think it would make sense that Romanians would still pursue their independence, considering Byzantium seems to treat them as Vlach vassals instead of fellow Romans.
1:02:43 Greek maybe, but I don't think they'd call themselves Byzantine 😅
Yuh that's one of the videos ever made
I honestly don't think Bulgarian culture would still exist. I feel that they would all be integrated as well as the Albanians and Macedonians.
Doubtful, due to their long standing cultural resistance, while trying to preserve their identity. (One thing that did annoy me in the video is why does Albania take North Epirus if it is Guaranteed to be 100% Hellenic in this Timeline?)
So many butterflies died in the making of this timeline for the napoleonic wars and WW1 to have occurred in the same way it did in OTL.
I mean.... nothing happened to change the world drastically. The crusades still happened, leading to the teutonic order still conquering the baltics and becoming prussia and nothing else I think would have changed the timeline.
Amazing.
7:46
Roman Kalinka?
So great man!
Мне кажется, что хорошим альтернативным сюжетом стала бы буржуазная революция в Византии, подобная Французской революции и произошедшая под её влиянием. Появление греческого национализма сбросило бы римские регалии, как отсталые и архаичные, страна стала бы называться Греческой Империей.
Также интересно было, если бы Наполеон покорил Византию и разрушил там старые институты, как это было в Священной Римской Империи, и создал вместо старой Восточной Римской Византии Цисбалканскую, Балкано-Анатолийскую или Греческую республику.
Любопытно то, что Византия в вашем сценарии во многом повторяет судьбу Османской Империи. Географическое положение очень влияет на историю государства и по сути судьба Османской Империи - это естественный и логичный путь Византии, если бы не упадок после IV крестового похода. Османы заняли пустующее место и их сердцем стала зона проливов.
Well done!
It doesn't make sense why they would change their name to "Greece", especially when they are the continuation of a 2500 year old nation.
Was dissapointed when they started declining, then the reconquest of north Africa and regaining modern day Tunisia hyped me up!
aw they declined again
YES THEIR POWER IS RISING UP AGAIN
THEY CONQUERED THE MAMLUKS
Nooo they lost the first world war 😢
nooo Greece is formed
I wonder if you can make an all months version of all roman-germanic wars like you did regarding roman-persian wars. That would be very beautiful to see
Was good until the first World War. I disagree with the notion that everything has to go to the liberal democratic direction. Especially if something like Byzantium survives for so long. It takes 1 uprising of the "wrong side" in America or Britain and liberalism is finished. Alt-history rarely depicts this and instead they keep lots of stuff similar. Still, good work.
Angelos Dynasty redemption arc?
They were constantly bullied by nomadic invaders and still survived to 1933, impressive
WW1 borders way too similar to OTL, especially with both Austria (why is austria so large) and Germany (doubt they would form like that anyways, prussia only happened because the ERE fell) also romania existing is odd, wouldn't they be called something like Dacia? I mean, the ERE called themselves Rhomania anyways. Also colonization would look wayyy different or wouldn't happen at all if the Romans still existed. WW1 would never happen, the closest would be a great war esqu scenario if European powers somehow still became ontop, also the Romans would never call themselves "Byzantines", let alone "Greece". Realistically, if they still existed they'd name themselves Romania or something similar to that. Also they wouldn't be as powerful as portrayed in the video. By a certain point you're kind of conflating the Byzantines and Ottomans together and forgetting they were both different states and entities. Its a pipe dream for them to ever reclaim Syria, let alone all of Egypt and then push up into Hungary and Romania. Also Safavids forming is interesting. Dont know much of Persian history but I doubt they would form at all. Anyways, other than, its still a really good video. I love seeing alternative history of different empires, especially the Byzantines. Its really nice to see how creative people can be, keep up the good work brother 💯💯
Well you see, that's generally the problem with Alt-history, as we don't know 100% what would change and what would relatively stay the same.
@@yazovgaming I mean, yeah, but the point of alt history is to be alternative history, it's not necessary supposed to be too realistic, because alot of things happen OTL that realistically should never have happened or had very small chances too
Many of these videos are too afraid to try something different, they only feel comfortable changing the past but when it comes to the present they just fall back on what's already there instead of using theory imagination and creating an entirely new timeline that has some basis in reality
Regarding "Dacia". That name stopped being used in late antiquity when the Dacians as a distinct people vanished from history. This scenario is not that different from real life in the middle ages. The Romanians would probably still identify as Romans, and call their land Romania. The Greeks would call their empire Rhomania as well, and they would refer to Romanians as Vlachs and their land Wallachia, just like in reality.
I like the long 900 year pause on Roman-Persian wars aka the best historical rivalry of all time.
I think this had a surprisingly beautiful ending. I hope we can have a finished history of this new Republic of Greece as well
Calling the hre the holy german empire is really a violation 💀
6:20 Kalinka?
The perfect world doesn’t exi
will you do a continuation with the history of greece
1:21:00 A Crimean war are no sens in this uchronia, even more with an EasternRoman and Russian alliance.
Можно продолжение за Греческую республику до наших дней?
What year would be the greatest extent for Byzantium
What is the song used at one hour and two minutes in that speaks of Historia?
Imagine if Greece had Anatolia irl crazy
Why is there not a single clash with the Habsburgs and Venice and an alliance with the Safavids in 1739? Byzantium had a very weak fleet, why did it include islands?! But the main question is why the eastern territories were not captured by the Mongols: Hulagu and Timur? Especially Timur, because for him the destruction of Byzantium and its population (yes, genocide) means gaining absolute authority in the Islamic world and restoring the Caliphate.
This is a masterpiece in Ancient/Roman Mapping videos genera ❤️
What kings are these photos
Nice video. Can you make alternative Ottoman Empire history?
9:44 I think Eranshahr should be allowed to keep some territory because after all, they have made Byzantine miserable, but giving back all the territory like that is not right at all.
Will you continue with this alt TL what happens after the greek republic is created
we want more videos like this
31:00 Roman conquer Corsica
Amazing GG bro i love your content
What’s the music in the beginning it’s dope
Macedon Industrial Theme form Civ VI
Nice vid man could you make an alternate timeline of the Macedonian empire 😅
Looks like a megacampaign which is cool
This video is so intheresting❤❤❤❤
what is the prosperity indicator and what the colors mean?
Российская империя ни коода бы не воевала с винзантией они были бы союзникам и в первой мировой византия бы выступила против австрии за контроль на балканах
Ты это князю Олегу скажи
If Byzantine empire survived the invasion of the Ottoman Empire:
pienso lo mismo.
CONGRATS!!!
💯🎉🥳
The not make sense place is why Byzantine only hold modern Greece territory not have more in Balkan
Bro wouldnt the republic of greece at the end of the video still be roman as like they were byzantium or eastern rome but like, they just now call themselves greece? They would still be roman.
1:03:59 Hungary got clapped again at Világos
Amazing 👏 🤩
Then The Ottomans(Turkiye) has no migrates to Anatoly😱
The empire becoming a republic ruined the ending of the video
Can you do an alternate history of the Carolingian empire.
почему Византия воюет с Россией?
Every man's dream
I expected the Karasids but this is also good.
Would greece join the allies or axis in ww2
Resumen: en territorios casi un Imperio Otomano 2.0
I hear farya faraji
What’s your disc?
Also I liked it
I meant discord user
he went there he did it
The only aspect that I can respect about the work (which is otherwise confusing, sterile on a figurative, imaginative and creative level on a historical level) that doesn't even arouse interest... I point out that the only positive point that you have made with this video is "the music" (although it is still a copy and paste). But the rest, and the fantasy of telling that story is pure contempt for history, by not including and despising the history of a country so important in the history of the world, such as the Spain of the “Austrias “hasburgs”and the (bourbons), from the Middle Ages, with the reconquest and the expulsion of the Muslims from the Iberian Peninsula, through the influence that the discovery of America had in Europe with the decisive influence, at a strategic and geopolitical level that it had on the entire continent and therefore, in all the nations of Europe, and above all it is unforgivable with how decisive and influential was the Emperor Charles I of Spain and (V) fifth of Germany, (Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire), which you do not name at any time... nor be not even the fantasy that Philip II, king of the Spanish Habsburgs and king of Spain, had been born… (It is contemptuous towards Spain and absurd to ignore it in the history you have made…)… and without naming and excluding the 30 years war between Catholicism and Protestantism and ignoring Spain in the corresponding part that it was and in the relationship with Austria and until the 18th century.
You're the type of guy to remind the teacher about the homework
The vid is a bit too slow. It was too slow even when I increased the speed to 2x. Romania would most likely not exist because the official name of the Roman Empire was Romania. This was also the name the Greek insurgents used in XIX century. I guess South Italy, Crimea and the coast up to Danube Delta could still be the part of the Empire till the end because of strong Greek ethnic presence.
It was more cool if Italy in the end became the new Roman country
Bro stop it the ottomans and the Turks might get a heart attack
Do alternate timeline of Babylonia plz