Good video I wish the 4th Crusaders weren’t so stupid. I’m glad you understand real history the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire the Holy Roman Empire was a pretender state. Thank you for bringing up the Armenian Genocide they tried to downplay it
The notable work “Chronographia” of Michael Psellos (Psellus), prominent Byzantine Historian and Imperial Courtier to several Byzantine Emperors (11th century), is one of the best accounts and series of biographies from emperor Basil II to Nikephoros III. A unique and valuable source on the history of the 11th century Greek Byzantine Empire. Truly, a historic and academic treasure.
13:39 I highly doubt the byzantines would just give up Egypt after getting it back It would make the rest to Europe invade them to take it back because Egypt was a core part of the Byzantine Empire and they weren't going to give it back
Yes, but the people of Egypt would rebel and fight an independence war, after seeing the rest of the world decolonize. Egypt would have to have a Greek majority to stay in the empire till the modern age. And that would not happen bc of Egypt's huge population.
@@benshiotsu8553 The thing is they would be a different culture, and in the modern world multi ethnic country's don't last so long and are very unstable eventually Egypt would want independence and the byzantines would have to give in to them unless if they would spend a huge amount of resources to occupie them.
yeah i bet the romans would dump all their energy on making Egypt a viable province. Not only for the core-breadbasket province aspect but also because it would give them direct access to India, East Africa and China. By the 1600-1800's the kopts werent gone yet. I could see greek settlement coupled with kopt revival. Alexandria had a small greek population until the 1900's in our timeline
The Egyptians would've rebelled heavily. France was also adamant on keeping some of its colonies like Algeria but the people's might overcame it. If the Ottomans couldn't have even kept their territories in Iraq and Greater Syria, then neither could the Romans
ottoman empire was a muslim version of roman empire already. If Turkey was a christian country it probably would have the most similar culture to byzantines.
@@mertozbek680 It would be just a Byzantine Empire with a Turkish population and the line of Osman in the throne and these Christian Turks would assimilate and try their best to copy Byzantine culture
I once met a girl, who’s parents had come to the US from Greece. They had come from Thessaloniki, but their parents, her grandparents, had gone to Thessaloniki after centuries of living in constantinople. They still called themselves “Romeii” Romans
Why bother with 4th Crusade and Manzikert whilst you can have Justinian never Attacking Ostrogothic Kingdom or the Vandals, thus Eastern Roman Empire remaining more Compact and Wealthy giving it a Better chance of Surviving Rashidun Caliphate.
Great video! With this level of quality I would say you're easily one of my new favorite alternate history youtubers, alongside Alternate History Hub, Whatifalthist, and Monsieur Z.
Good stuff. However one tip for your oration. You use your throat to speak a lot, so some sounds are hard to differentiate from others. Almost like you are slighly slurring your words. My suggestion is to take a deep breath before each sentence.
If there was a moment in history in which the east could be reclaimed and at the same time maintaining the advancements and evolution of the Christian world as it did in our timeline (more or less), it would be this one. I don’t think the Eastern Roman Empire could be able to expand much towards Italy nor what would be the southwestern balkans. Their nature moves more towards the consolidating of their gains, it’d probably take them quite a while to assimilate these populations. I definitely think Armenia and Georgia would be pretty safe in what could be described as an “ unofficial autonomous zone” within the empire, such as they were in our timeline when they got swallowed by it.
I see WW2 playing out very differently or even WW1. If Rome(Byzantium) begins to see a people looking to national identity and they consider themselves Roman. I think it is likely we would see them at the very least make an attempt to go for Rome. Especially, if we apply them to say WW2. Mussolini cannot happen as our timeline. If anything he would be a Roman at heart and being want to reunite Italy with Rome. The biggest issue is the two might actually fight over who has the right to the name and thus causing Rome to be reunited regardless of who would win. I do agree with your timeline as a very likely situation for Rome. Now it is important to know that the Romani (Romans) in much larger numbers would be still alive today. We likely would have a history written by Rome. America would be created as our time in a creation to be like Rome. I think that some Romans might take the chance and actually enter into the young republic creating a very Romanic United States of America. It really is an interesting idea how this actually the reverberates throughout history. Now WW2 Hitler I think would be effected by the change. I am not totally sure on what Germany would look like as Rome still would be alive and perhaps fighting to reunify. The only part here would be depends on if either sided with the Axis or Allies or just a personal war between Italy and Rome for control of the Empire.
Rome would likely seek alliance with Russia and with either France or the U.K if Italy were to go down the "We're the original" Rome route, they'd stay against Germany since Germany would still want to rule europe. They'd also naturally be against Napoleonic France, but I feel like after the American revolution, Rome might be more willing to return some powers to the senate, while still maintaining an emperor. I think a modern Rome would have a Roman Emperor who still has a lot of power, but with a stronger, and more stable senate due to seeing the progress and effects that the American Republic had. That said, the American Republic would take more influence from Rome in this timeline, and probably won't start off as decentralized as it did in our timeline, making a more unified American identity earlier on. That being said, the Romans stilled believed they were a republic, and probably wouldn't have a violent civil war, or anything like that in order to reform itself, but likely a mixture of outcry from the populace about returning to the original routes of the empire.
If Byzantines (Romans) survived, the whole timeline would be off. Further we go in time, the bigger the difference would get. There would be no "world wars" as we know it. Entire countries would be different.
It's not as simple as it's painted. Even in 1203 the Greeks had already been suffering under decades of corruption and due to that most of anotolia was functionally independent (many of the post 1204 fragmentary states were actually lead by these regional nobles). Before you can think of major expansion these nobles would have to be dealt with and possibly admistrative reform. The reconquest could happen that rapidly if the Mongol collapse causes chaos among the turk tribes but it would lead to 2 or 3 centuries (at absolute minimum) of unrest while Greek recolonisation and integration occurred, a few regions would probably have remote populations of Turks, though not massive populations as Turks were not very populus at that time. The Bulgarian identity was very established by the 1200s, as established as English identity in the same time. It's the 800-900 that Bulgarian identity was formed.
I wouldn’t say that tbh, the English identity as we know it today was not at all very well established, it had been Only a century after the conquest by the Normans, the upper classes were predominately French and the peasants Anglo Saxon, it was only after the 100 years war where the English identity was fully 100% solidified
With adopting Gunpowder and Cannon first + navy, Egypt and the Levant would be recovered in teh 1600's. Easily. Also they had majority christian population until 1800s.
unless they somehow attempted a reconquest of egypt, its unlikely they wouldn't keep pressure on Southern Italy as it was a much more productive region.
What if the Ottomans converted to Christianity? It would be interesting to see a Christian ruler who was at war with the Ottomans and won have just once condition for the Ottomans to accept in return for peace. That being the Ottomans allow missionaries to enter and teach in the empire without persecution. I think the Ottoman rulers would accept if it was the only thing they had to do as a payment in a lost war.
9:09 "The Byzantines had gotten along with the Armenians throughout history". So did the Ottomans before the the 19th Century, but then they became very intolerant.
You failed to account for how the byzantines viewed the levant and Egypt if there was no 4th crusade there would’ve been significant investment in reconquering the levant Egypt and at least up to crotaia in the balkans
I like the analysis. I play a strategy came called Europa Universalis IV, which starts in 1444. I mostly play as Byzantium, and try to re-form the Roman Empire. Needless to say, taking on the Turks in 1444 is **ahem!** a challenge. But, I like nothing better than to vanquish the Turks from Anatolia, reclaim the Levant, restore Egypt to the Empire, re-take the Balkans, and take Italy. Of course, the ultimate goal is helping wayward Catholics and later Protestants see the error of their ways (usually by force) and heal the schism once and for all.
Haha. Back in 2018 I used to always play byzantium, I used to do ironman and I had like 150ish attempts trying to get the perfect start. Ended up getting it and had a beautiful campaign. Back then the "mend the schism" mission didn't even convert the catholic countries lol.
tbh in this timeline the romans reconquered anatolia would focus on recapturing Bulgaria,Mosiea ,crimera and then by Mid 1300s and early 1400s they would focus alot of effort in reconquering the levant,Egypt and Cyrenaica so they have alot more time to have colonies in this timeline of course if they close the slik road like in OTL
If the 4th crusade never happened, the Balkans would've been split between Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and Byzantine successor states (similar to the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire). Hungary would've probably controlled modern day Romania and Western Croatia.
If the Varangian Guard still exists in this timeline (in like a French foreign legion kinda form maybe) that would be cool, they’d probably still be around in this timeline if the sack of Constantinople failed it would be because the Varangian guard wouldn’t have been held back and be let loosed know to the Crusaders and the city (and most importantly the empire) would surely be thankful to them and want to keep them around. Idk what do guys think, do you think they’d grow corrupt and bloated like the Praetorians and Janissaries or just like Rome in this timeline, stand the test of time.
Could you maybe do what if Byzantium won at Manzikert. 4th Crusade definitely did irreversible damage but Manzikert for sure was a huge set back but could be turned around with good management.
Even as the empire was collapsing they waged constant civil wars for what was still left, it would be no different in this new timeline and it would not lead to the Roman empire regaining anything, in time other powers would chip away at it like they did before the 4th crusade and after. They were not united and I doubt they would become united just because the crusade didn't happen. They literally had civil wars up till the very end where their "empire" was but a few small provinces and their doom was all but certain. If they didn't change anything while their empire was burning for a few hundered years they most certainly would not change when things would be going a little better.
I think the Romans had the best shot of survival is if they had won Manzikert as even during the restoration of the Empire lead by the Komnenos dynasty still had fully recovered from the disaster and the empire would contract again as soon as slightly below average leaders took charge.
You did bulgaria a bit dirty ngl, I think Bulgaria would gain independence between 1750 - 1860 and they will be a bit smaller but independent, also what is stopping Byzantium from becoming a great socialist power? perhaps having a union between bulgaria, yugoslavian entities and byzantium, a balkan USSR
I could imagine the empire wouldve survived longer if the 4th crusade never happened, I doubt they'd reconquer all of Anatolia though (the Byzantine Empire rarely seemed to expand that much since about the 8th or 9th centuries) but probably parts of it, maybe parts of Bulgaria too but survive to the modern day? Pretty hard to know that, with 800 years more to speculate. The Byzantine Empire wouldve naturally lagged behind the rest of Europe once the age of colonialism would start, and the Turks wouldn't exactly go away as an issue in this timeline Idk, at best in this timeline, if the Byzantine Empire did somehow survive to the modern age, it might’ve just essentially been Greece surviving as independent to the modern age, and instead of being known as Greece, it wouldve just been known as Byzantium, or even still just the Roman Empire, with the Greeks having called themselves that into even the modern era
Still, this would be so mindblowing, having a state on the map in modern times which in has continously existed for thousands of years since the ancient era.
Roman empire had been decayed for long time before the sack of Constantinople. After the east-west division, every successful attempt at expansion always came at the cost of further shrinkage of their territory within a generation. If the trend persisted, chances are by 19th century, they will be left as a minor Balkan state around Thrace. We should not forget that there was not just Ottoman empire threat from Anatolia. Bulgarian empire existed just north of Constantinople as well. And it's the threat of both empires that prevent Byzantine from exacting their ambitions.
if the byzantines had anatolia they would have beaten the bulgarians as well also becoming a minor state only in thrace seems very unlikely since mainland greece would be majority greek same with western anatolia it could shrink as a state but i doubt it would be a minor state perhaps like modern greece with constantinople western anatolia and thrace
I doubt Bulgaria would be part of the Empire for long, though. They showed that they simply don't want be part of it before. I see the modern Byzantium roughly the territory of Greece and Turkey combined, plus Cyprus. As for importance, I'm guessing a very strong soft powere because of culture prestige. Like France on steroids.
I think that they would just fracture anyways, the empire was in constant civil war and they would simply shrink until Constantinople would be relegated to a state of no influence over the regions of Greece and Anatolia
Ethnic makeup of this country would have been like Balkan: Greeks, Albanians, Serbo-Croats, Aromanians, Bulgarians, Romanians Crimea: Greeks, Russians, Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars, Germans, Armenians Anatolia: Greeks, Anatolian Turkomans (of what etnic Turkish would have been like in this timeline), Armenians, Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians
i think albanians aromanians and bulgarians would dissapear as time went by same about the turks the greeks would have been a much much larger ethnicity than our timeline
@@TheHunterOfYharnam I'm not so sure about Bulgarians. They had their own script and independent identity and Byzantine grasp on the region after it was pacified by Basil II was always more limited to trade routes, Urban centres and fortifications. I think it is telling that the Bulgarians still had a large population after so many years of Ottoman rule as well. But there would definetly be a big Greek/Roman population living in the Urban Centres and Rumelia after a few centuries.
kinda late but in ww1 the byzantines would probably side- no, be part of the entente. Especially since Russia was part of it. It would also mean ww1 would be much shorter since there wouldnt be a prolonged balkan front since the Greeks and Russians would easily take on the austrians which would lead to germany being pressured from all sides. That could also mean no communist revolution and ww2 being either shorter. No communism means no cold war and without the cold war empires would probably remain and colonies wouldnt be stripped off completely from anyone (at least only partially). But before WW1 etc etc there could be wars of the Orthodox east with the Catholic West and probably protestants later on. That war would probably end in stalemate
I do wonder if the Eastern Romans would be interested in the Caucasus? Or would there be a strong and united Kingdom of Georgia between them and Russia?
Fourth crusade could still happen salong as they elect not to and in the succession crise in the empire and is form against Venice that they will be repayed.
I don't think Rome/Byzantium wouldn't have joined the central powers in world war 1 mainly because it had/has been in competition with Austria and Hungary for control over the Balkan's, and instead it probably would've remained neutral with it probably joining the allies after America joined in on the side of the allies (basically like otl Greece). It's involvement in world war 2 be bit more up in the air and it would depend on the two power-hungry mad-men in charge of Italy and Germany, but in all likely hood it would remain neutral in that war. The cold war wouldn't have happened either as Russia with Roman/Byzantine help would modernize and industrialize much sooner in this timeline (by 1908 at the latest) likely avoiding the absolute nightmare that was the Russian Revolution and the wonderfully awful side affects of that.
Safavids will not conquer Iran in this timeline the reason for this is that the safavid Dynasty was linked to Aq Qoyunlu ( White sheep ) , Aq Qoyunlu themselves were linked to the komenenos family as they royal married them , this happened when the komenenos family ruled the empire of Trabzond which will not exist in this timeline keep in mind that the Aq Qoyunlu managed to conquer persia due to Hasan Uzun " he wouldn't exist in this scenario as he is too linked to the komenenos " But that won't Change the religion in persia as Iran in this timeline will remain under the rule of Qara Qoyunlu " Black sheep " they were Shia Muslims and Azeris.
No Kara Koyunlu didn’t conquer Persia, they owned Azerbaijan and Mesopotamia mostly, the many Timurid breakaway states ruled Persia before the Safavids came.
Interesting video. I really hope you make more of these. One thing tho. What's stopping Bulgarians and South Slavs from wanting independence tho? Especially Bulgaria since they have been historically a rival to Byzantines, and both might wanna resist 'Greek-ruled' empire. Are the Turks of Anatolia Hellenized in this timeline? If not, wouldn't they also want independence, due to huge cultural differences between them and Greeks?
Thanks man. I mentioned in the video that the Bulgarians would be assimilated into Greek culture, and my end map of Byzantium didn't include the other slavic land. Yes, the Turks would have been hellenised, which was likely given Greek Christians were still present in those regions of Anatolia at that time.
This assimiliation is highly unlikely especially around 1200. The Bulgarians had just liberated themselves and they had one of their greatest kings back them with some important alliances also. They were on the rise and Constantinople was already a bit weak - conquering them would not be possible for the next 50 years at least - so, maybe their only chance was in Anatolya.
Pretty much my look on this love you look on it. How about if the Incan rebel state survived in Peru. The portion in the Amazon that lasted years after the rest fell. Another great look would be theordoric the greats kingdom of Italy. .
The neo-Incan state is quite fascinating. I'm considering doing a Justinian alternate timeline, perhaps if he never did the invasions at all, which would have a big impact upon the ostrogoths.
I dubt that Timur who conquered much of anatolia in 1406 would enter in war with the Empire. And possibly siege Constantinople. But it us possible Byzantine have access to plate armor and cannons in this tineline. Olso a strong byzantium could attract the mongols in 1240 once they leraned about some rich cities west of anatolia.
You could just as easily say that without the Ottomans, Bosnia and Herzegovina couldn't have been annexed by the Austrians, Archduke Franz Ferdinand therefore doesn't get assassinated by Serb nationalists, no WWI, no fascism or communism, no WWII, no broken Europe, no decolonisation. The problem is that it's almost impossible to predict even the next six months after an event changes, let alone 800 years. I get that this is all a bit of historical fanfic and a bit of fun, though, so I'll try to be less of a pedant. If was still well researched and professionally executed :)
My argument was not about the same type of WWI or WWII occurring, but instead similar conflicts occurring and having similar results. My argument would be that the European balance of power wars were already occurring before 1204, and that the great acceleration of Europe will still occur. If these two things hold true, then there would inevitably be a European balance of power war using mechanised warfare like in WWI, and this would most likely have similar effects (Europeans starting to doubt themselves etc). Communism or a similar equivalent is likely to form out of a worker's rights movement, which is essentially guaranteed if an Industrial revolution occurs, at least in my view. Fascism or an equivalent far right movement would likely find roots after such a devastating conflict as well. Essentially my argument revolves around the major factors causing WWI, WWII, fascism and communism in the long term still occurring, so it would make sense a similar conflict to those two would still occur in this timeline and cause similar results, and similar political movements to occur. My argument is based on the idea that WWI was essentially inevitable regardless of Franz Ferdinand, but that's a specific view of history not all people agree with. Anyway I had fun writing this justification, was just trying to explain that this video was not meant as a fanfic kinda one, and I have justifications for why equivalents to WWI, communism etc would still occur. I appreciate the support as well.
Maybe use video clips in your content, as well as pictures. It can give a clearer visual representation in some cases and seems more professional. Also, your voice is a bit quiet (unnatural if that makes sense?), almost like you're trying to be discreet. Maybe speak like you'd speak to a friend or sibling, or just speak louder in general. It will engage your audience more than you'd expect.
Good advice, apologies this comment will held for review for some reason so I didn’t see it until checking now. I will definitely be taking this advice on board.
There would also be no muslim ethnic groups forming in the Balkans, butterflying away OTL Bosniaks, and no Great Migrations of the Serbs, so ITTL the majority of the Bosnians would have likely been assimilated into the Croat identity while under the Kingdom of Hungary.
The house of Osman could have risen since turks had setteled anatolia ever since manzikert so we could see them in classic roman imperial fasion overthrow the emperor by military force since for generations they had extremely compentant leadership at the start. So we could have seen a couple of muslim emperors from the house of osman
This. When I first learned about rhe 4th crusade, I revoked my Papacy Loyality Card. Later I learned what christians did to library of Alexandria I left it for good. Personally, I have nothing against believers, I just coudn't stay in line and suppprt it anymore. Blindly followimg orders isn't my thing.
😂😂😂Byzantines would never and I mean never recover Anatolia from the chad Turks. Byzantines were fully inc@ls by the 4th crusade. If the crusade never happened they would have just turned in on themselves and fought their 49th, 50th and 51st virg/n cixil war.
Imagine what beautiful orthodox Roman Christian churches we would have, if they survived… Look up at the Russian Church of armed forces near Moscow for example…
The Byzantines were not Roman,nothing but a glorified Greek Kingdom with non Latin Eastern Christianity,the HRE was the real continuation,end of the story.
Here is a "what if?" What if Prince Henry Stuart had never swam across the Thames in 1612, & subsequently died of typhoid? There is so much tragedy in England and Ireland that unfolded all because some haughty young prince decided to swim across a polluted river. Namely, Charles who never wanted, and was never groomed for the crown becomes the next Stuart king of England, fails miserably because he is completely in over his head, is deposed & beheaded. Under the Protectorate led by Oliver Cromwell, the genocide against the Irish goes into high gear. And for all the tragedy that this generation has occurred, Parliament ends up recalling Charles II to be King in England. All this because some dumb kid had to show off & swim the Thames.
I've heard of the civil war and such, but I never knew about Prince Henry Stuart before. Quite a tragic story. Sometime in the near future an Anglo-Saxon alt history will be coming out, but it would definitely be interesting to cover a more recent English timeline, perhaps involving the civil war.
not necessarily by 1000 ad the byzantines were starting to use the name hellenes as well it could go kinda like it did in our timeline refering to ourselves mostly as romioi and using the word greek as secondary until the 20th century when we start using the word greek over the word roman also i think that perhaps the bulgarians wouldn't be assimilated that easily but by our time i think some would be assimilated and the rest would be way fewer than the greeks in thrace to be considered a problem same probably with the turks also in the colonialism think i don't think egypt and the levant would be separate from the empire because they are connected by land i also think that the byzantine empire or Rhomania as we called it would have ended up as a greek ethnic state perhaps with 2 small minorities, one bulgarian and one turkish that as time would go by would disapear by assimilation and other means egypt and the levant wouldn't be majority greek (perhaps lebanon and parts of syria would) the rest could regain independence just later? cause if the byzantines were to hold on to those regions they would have to grow their population considerable and keep those places with lower population managing 100 million people in egypt would be a challenge but definetly the greeks today would be a much much larger ethnicity too globaly there are 17-18 million greeks today but if the forced assimilations of the 12th century didn't happen and the genocides didn't happen either perhaps the greeks would be at least 50 million today if not more taking in to account that it would be powerful economically, it would be very industrialized, a major player in global affairs ect ect to be honest i think it would eventually annex serbia croatia and south italy too but who knows
3:15 i dont think the byzantines were competent enough for that much gains. When the abassids collapsed for example, the byzantines only took a small strip down to antioch. They would at best, push to antioch again and never take east anatolia. If they dont just distract themselves with civil wars while the turkic tribes recover.
really unlikely that turks would be hellenised imo. there is no real analogue for mass invaders who overrun byzantine lands getting assimilated (besides maybe the germanic tribes) and the turks wouldnt just have a strong tribal and religious identity, but theirs would be well suited for the central anatolian steppe and the hills of anatolia overall. in fact they wouldnt be getting assimilated but they wouldve probably continued to assimilate and weaken byzantine control in the area, very similarly to how slavs overran and eventually assimilated the balkans. conquering inner anatolia would be impossible as the semi-nomadic herders would have an unmistakable advantage in the area and the omnipresent tribal bandits would constantly harass byzantine authority and armies. the most byzantium could do is conquer western anatolia and force the east to accept vassalage, and even this would only last as long as constantinople had good leadership. anatolia would be like the balkans here - it would be filled with invader people for most of the areas except the coasts (and even then some areas like paphlagonia and cilicia would still be overrun) and byzantium would be lucky if they could christianise even one turkish beylik. byzantium could subjugate anatolia in strong phases, but any place outside the marmara and coastal aegean region (though the hinterland of the aegean area might be hellenised the same way nikephoros i forcefully expelled slavs from greece and replaces them with anatolian greeks, but then again who knows if greece and coastal anatolia alone have enough greeks) would be tumultuous. anatolia would never become a heartland again, it would slip away more and more as it had been solidifed in myriokephalon
One question WTF Crussade attak Bulgara Empire and Bizantyne Empite .Maybe Crussade anti christian ?Bulgarian Powerful Fist Smah arogance Crusader and anti chistian coalicion in Odrin 1205
You are siding alot with byzantium when timur attacks anatolia the hungarans could and would attack then venetian and genoes would hider trade and conquerer islands the mongols and if baibars of mamulaks still acends he would attack anatolia and you are also forgetting turkic miagratons and unrest along with that russia has the manpower to invade thru the balkans
Hey! In this video you mentioned that the Bulgarians would be easy to assimilate, due to their defiance of Byzantium and having a weak national identity. This is very wrong! The Bulgarians were actually one of the *first* medieval nations with a national identity, which was a very important goal of rulers in the first Bulgarian Empire, and Asen's rebellion was also the first instance of nationalism in Europe. In addition, Bulgaria had a very flourishing literature which existed during both Byzantine and Ottoman rule. You also seem to overestimate the ability of the Byzantine Empire, and forget that they had a very laissez-faire approach to minorities and foreign peoples (by your logic, Albanians should have been nonexistent for at least 1000 years)
Then i woke up and realized it was a video and cryed myself to sleep :(
but i will dream about this
Good video I wish the 4th Crusaders weren’t so stupid. I’m glad you understand real history the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire the Holy Roman Empire was a pretender state. Thank you for bringing up the Armenian Genocide they tried to downplay it
The notable work “Chronographia” of Michael Psellos (Psellus), prominent Byzantine Historian and Imperial Courtier to several Byzantine Emperors (11th century), is one of the best accounts and series of biographies from emperor Basil II to Nikephoros III.
A unique and valuable source on the history of the 11th century Greek Byzantine Empire. Truly, a historic and academic treasure.
13:39 I highly doubt the byzantines would just give up Egypt after getting it back It would make the rest to Europe invade them to take it back because Egypt was a core part of the Byzantine Empire and they weren't going to give it back
Yes, but the people of Egypt would rebel and fight an independence war, after seeing the rest of the world decolonize. Egypt would have to have a Greek majority to stay in the empire till the modern age. And that would not happen bc of Egypt's huge population.
@@comrademakno Egypt may just join the Byzantines because of their historic connection
@@benshiotsu8553 The thing is they would be a different culture, and in the modern world multi ethnic country's don't last so long and are very unstable eventually Egypt would want independence and the byzantines would have to give in to them unless if they would spend a huge amount of resources to occupie them.
yeah i bet the romans would dump all their energy on making Egypt a viable province. Not only for the core-breadbasket province aspect but also because it would give them direct access to India, East Africa and China. By the 1600-1800's the kopts werent gone yet. I could see greek settlement coupled with kopt revival. Alexandria had a small greek population until the 1900's in our timeline
The Egyptians would've rebelled heavily. France was also adamant on keeping some of its colonies like Algeria but the people's might overcame it.
If the Ottomans couldn't have even kept their territories in Iraq and Greater Syria, then neither could the Romans
Great video, I really enjoyed it
Cheers man
Me too, it was really educative
is like having a Christian ottoman empire I LOVE IT
But a bit smaller
ottoman empire was a muslim version of roman empire already. If Turkey was a christian country it probably would have the most similar culture to byzantines.
@@mertozbek680 It would be just a Byzantine Empire with a Turkish population and the line of Osman in the throne and these Christian Turks would assimilate and try their best to copy Byzantine culture
@@mertozbek680 if Turkey was Christian it would be like Greece’s best friend.
@@dewd9327 No if that was the case they would have been only one nation Rome
Roma = Byzantium
I once met a girl, who’s parents had come to the US from Greece. They had come from Thessaloniki, but their parents, her grandparents, had gone to Thessaloniki after centuries of living in constantinople. They still called themselves “Romeii” Romans
keep making more alt history mate
i really wish Byzantium survived both the fourth crusade and the fall of Constantinople
this is the one and only dream i wish it would come true
Same I'm a byzantiphile
@@comrademakno same here 😢😢
Byzantophile 4 life
@علئ ياسر ? Uh no
Why bother with 4th Crusade and Manzikert whilst you can have Justinian never Attacking Ostrogothic Kingdom or the Vandals, thus Eastern Roman Empire remaining more Compact and Wealthy giving it a Better chance of Surviving Rashidun Caliphate.
Great video! With this level of quality I would say you're easily one of my new favorite alternate history youtubers, alongside Alternate History Hub, Whatifalthist, and Monsieur Z.
I barely stopped myself from crying....
A Christian Turkey?
This is just beautiful
It wasn't turkish land at all, Turks came to Anatolia in 11th century, since that century Anatolia is occupied
Best Byzantine timeline so far
Good stuff. However one tip for your oration. You use your throat to speak a lot, so some sounds are hard to differentiate from others. Almost like you are slighly slurring your words.
My suggestion is to take a deep breath before each sentence.
To be honest I noticed the same problem but I wasn’t sure what was causing it, I’ll try that in my next video. Thanks for the tip I appreciate it.
@@HistorysInfluence yeah just try to use your chest to resonate your voice. A very minor thing to do considering the content is quite good.
If there was a moment in history in which the east could be reclaimed and at the same time maintaining the advancements and evolution of the Christian world as it did in our timeline (more or less), it would be this one. I don’t think the Eastern Roman Empire could be able to expand much towards Italy nor what would be the southwestern balkans. Their nature moves more towards the consolidating of their gains, it’d probably take them quite a while to assimilate these populations. I definitely think Armenia and Georgia would be pretty safe in what could be described as an “ unofficial autonomous zone” within the empire, such as they were in our timeline when they got swallowed by it.
This content is underated, how the heck do you now have 5k+ subscribers? Anyways, love the content man, keep it up!!! God bless! :)
Lack of uploads lol. Thank you for the support
Really good video man, can't wait for more in the future.
@@JustinianG I already watch your content
I've always wished some one would do this "what if?" :)
Good video keep this up and you'll be one of the great what if history channels 👍 great quality for a newcomer too👌
Then the Greek Byzantine Empire would never have fallen. B B B B.
I see WW2 playing out very differently or even WW1. If Rome(Byzantium) begins to see a people looking to national identity and they consider themselves Roman. I think it is likely we would see them at the very least make an attempt to go for Rome. Especially, if we apply them to say WW2. Mussolini cannot happen as our timeline. If anything he would be a Roman at heart and being want to reunite Italy with Rome. The biggest issue is the two might actually fight over who has the right to the name and thus causing Rome to be reunited regardless of who would win. I do agree with your timeline as a very likely situation for Rome. Now it is important to know that the Romani (Romans) in much larger numbers would be still alive today. We likely would have a history written by Rome. America would be created as our time in a creation to be like Rome. I think that some Romans might take the chance and actually enter into the young republic creating a very Romanic United States of America. It really is an interesting idea how this actually the reverberates throughout history. Now WW2 Hitler I think would be effected by the change. I am not totally sure on what Germany would look like as Rome still would be alive and perhaps fighting to reunify. The only part here would be depends on if either sided with the Axis or Allies or just a personal war between Italy and Rome for control of the Empire.
Rome would likely seek alliance with Russia and with either France or the U.K if Italy were to go down the "We're the original" Rome route, they'd stay against Germany since Germany would still want to rule europe. They'd also naturally be against Napoleonic France, but I feel like after the American revolution, Rome might be more willing to return some powers to the senate, while still maintaining an emperor. I think a modern Rome would have a Roman Emperor who still has a lot of power, but with a stronger, and more stable senate due to seeing the progress and effects that the American Republic had.
That said, the American Republic would take more influence from Rome in this timeline, and probably won't start off as decentralized as it did in our timeline, making a more unified American identity earlier on.
That being said, the Romans stilled believed they were a republic, and probably wouldn't have a violent civil war, or anything like that in order to reform itself, but likely a mixture of outcry from the populace about returning to the original routes of the empire.
Romani? I hope you’re not mistaking the gypsies for romans lol.
If Byzantines (Romans) survived, the whole timeline would be off.
Further we go in time, the bigger the difference would get. There would be no "world wars" as we know it. Entire countries would be different.
That would be great hoi4 mod
It's not as simple as it's painted. Even in 1203 the Greeks had already been suffering under decades of corruption and due to that most of anotolia was functionally independent (many of the post 1204 fragmentary states were actually lead by these regional nobles). Before you can think of major expansion these nobles would have to be dealt with and possibly admistrative reform. The reconquest could happen that rapidly if the Mongol collapse causes chaos among the turk tribes but it would lead to 2 or 3 centuries (at absolute minimum) of unrest while Greek recolonisation and integration occurred, a few regions would probably have remote populations of Turks, though not massive populations as Turks were not very populus at that time.
The Bulgarian identity was very established by the 1200s, as established as English identity in the same time. It's the 800-900 that Bulgarian identity was formed.
I wouldn’t say that tbh, the English identity as we know it today was not at all very well established, it had been Only a century after the conquest by the Normans, the upper classes were predominately French and the peasants Anglo Saxon, it was only after the 100 years war where the English identity was fully 100% solidified
With adopting Gunpowder and Cannon first + navy, Egypt and the Levant would be recovered in teh 1600's. Easily. Also they had majority christian population until 1800s.
unless they somehow attempted a reconquest of egypt, its unlikely they wouldn't keep pressure on Southern Italy as it was a much more productive region.
What if the Ottomans converted to Christianity? It would be interesting to see a Christian ruler who was at war with the Ottomans and won have just once condition for the Ottomans to accept in return for peace. That being the Ottomans allow missionaries to enter and teach in the empire without persecution. I think the Ottoman rulers would accept if it was the only thing they had to do as a payment in a lost war.
Interesting video, hope to see more in the future.
9:09 "The Byzantines had gotten along with the Armenians throughout history". So did the Ottomans before the the 19th Century, but then they became very intolerant.
You failed to account for how the byzantines viewed the levant and Egypt if there was no 4th crusade there would’ve been significant investment in reconquering the levant Egypt and at least up to crotaia in the balkans
Excellent video!
I like the analysis. I play a strategy came called Europa Universalis IV, which starts in 1444. I mostly play as Byzantium, and try to re-form the Roman Empire. Needless to say, taking on the Turks in 1444 is **ahem!** a challenge. But, I like nothing better than to vanquish the Turks from Anatolia, reclaim the Levant, restore Egypt to the Empire, re-take the Balkans, and take Italy. Of course, the ultimate goal is helping wayward Catholics and later Protestants see the error of their ways (usually by force) and heal the schism once and for all.
Haha. Back in 2018 I used to always play byzantium, I used to do ironman and I had like 150ish attempts trying to get the perfect start. Ended up getting it and had a beautiful campaign. Back then the "mend the schism" mission didn't even convert the catholic countries lol.
@@HistorysInfluence "Kebabi I've come to bargain!"
"You've come to die!!"
Wow great video dude!
Nice video, looking forward to see more
Well done. Thanks.
tbh in this timeline the romans reconquered anatolia would focus on recapturing Bulgaria,Mosiea ,crimera and then by Mid 1300s and early 1400s they would focus alot of effort in reconquering the levant,Egypt and Cyrenaica so they have alot more time to have colonies in this timeline of course if they close the slik road like in OTL
If the 4th crusade never happened, the Balkans would've been split between Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and Byzantine successor states (similar to the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire). Hungary would've probably controlled modern day Romania and Western Croatia.
After watching this video i got tears from eyes. everything was so close but those damn venicians ruined everything
There's a downside that hasn't been considered.
The Winged Hussars would have no need to arrive.
If the Varangian Guard still exists in this timeline (in like a French foreign legion kinda form maybe) that would be cool, they’d probably still be around in this timeline if the sack of Constantinople failed it would be because the Varangian guard wouldn’t have been held back and be let loosed know to the Crusaders and the city (and most importantly the empire) would surely be thankful to them and want to keep them around. Idk what do guys think, do you think they’d grow corrupt and bloated like the Praetorians and Janissaries or just like Rome in this timeline, stand the test of time.
Could you maybe do what if Byzantium won at Manzikert. 4th Crusade definitely did irreversible damage but Manzikert for sure was a huge set back but could be turned around with good management.
Manzikert wasnt that much of a hit, but it unleashed the problems the Empire was facing ever since death of Basil II
Even as the empire was collapsing they waged constant civil wars for what was still left, it would be no different in this new timeline and it would not lead to the Roman empire regaining anything, in time other powers would chip away at it like they did before the 4th crusade and after. They were not united and I doubt they would become united just because the crusade didn't happen. They literally had civil wars up till the very end where their "empire" was but a few small provinces and their doom was all but certain. If they didn't change anything while their empire was burning for a few hundered years they most certainly would not change when things would be going a little better.
I think the Romans had the best shot of survival is if they had won Manzikert as even during the restoration of the Empire lead by the Komnenos dynasty still had fully recovered from the disaster and the empire would contract again as soon as slightly below average leaders took charge.
And then I woke up 😔
Wake up. Remember 4th crusade. Day ruined.
Guys we have to go back, I don't know how, but we must
If there was no turkic migration would be even better for Rome.
Here is another question: What if Kaloyan helped the byzantines like Tervel did?
Please do a no Prussia timeline or an extension of this focusing outside the Balkans?
No Prussia video coming soon...
Make Istanbul Constantinople Again!
Would you go to War for that?
I reckon the Byzantines would still be set back by the Mongols more than you think. The Mongols would be motivated by the lure of rich cities.
You did bulgaria a bit dirty ngl, I think Bulgaria would gain independence between 1750 - 1860 and they will be a bit smaller but independent, also what is stopping Byzantium from becoming a great socialist power? perhaps having a union between bulgaria, yugoslavian entities and byzantium, a balkan USSR
I could imagine the empire wouldve survived longer if the 4th crusade never happened, I doubt they'd reconquer all of Anatolia though (the Byzantine Empire rarely seemed to expand that much since about the 8th or 9th centuries) but probably parts of it, maybe parts of Bulgaria too
but survive to the modern day? Pretty hard to know that, with 800 years more to speculate.
The Byzantine Empire wouldve naturally lagged behind the rest of Europe once the age of colonialism would start, and the Turks wouldn't exactly go away as an issue in this timeline
Idk, at best in this timeline, if the Byzantine Empire did somehow survive to the modern age, it might’ve just essentially been Greece surviving as independent to the modern age, and instead of being known as Greece, it wouldve just been known as Byzantium, or even still just the Roman Empire, with the Greeks having called themselves that into even the modern era
Still, this would be so mindblowing, having a state on the map in modern times which in has continously existed for thousands of years since the ancient era.
Great video 👍 please make more videos about byzantinum.
I'm considering doing a Justinian based one in the future
Excellent.
New sub mate, really good stuff!
Roman empire had been decayed for long time before the sack of Constantinople. After the east-west division, every successful attempt at expansion always came at the cost of further shrinkage of their territory within a generation. If the trend persisted, chances are by 19th century, they will be left as a minor Balkan state around Thrace.
We should not forget that there was not just Ottoman empire threat from Anatolia. Bulgarian empire existed just north of Constantinople as well. And it's the threat of both empires that prevent Byzantine from exacting their ambitions.
if the byzantines had anatolia they would have beaten the bulgarians as well
also becoming a minor state only in thrace seems very unlikely since mainland greece would be majority greek
same with western anatolia
it could shrink as a state but i doubt it would be a minor state
perhaps like modern greece with constantinople western anatolia and thrace
Very nice
I doubt Bulgaria would be part of the Empire for long, though. They showed that they simply don't want be part of it before. I see the modern Byzantium roughly the territory of Greece and Turkey combined, plus Cyprus. As for importance, I'm guessing a very strong soft powere because of culture prestige. Like France on steroids.
I think Rumelia (Eastern Rumelia) and perhaps Macedonia and if the Empire is very lucky, Albania. Could all remain as part of the Empire.
I think that they would just fracture anyways, the empire was in constant civil war and they would simply shrink until Constantinople would be relegated to a state of no influence over the regions of Greece and Anatolia
The communion of christians was actually likely because constantine XI was really looking to bring Christianity back together
Ethnic makeup of this country would have been like
Balkan: Greeks, Albanians, Serbo-Croats, Aromanians, Bulgarians, Romanians
Crimea: Greeks, Russians, Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars, Germans, Armenians
Anatolia: Greeks, Anatolian Turkomans (of what etnic Turkish would have been like in this timeline), Armenians, Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians
i think albanians aromanians and bulgarians would dissapear as time went by
same about the turks
the greeks would have been a much much larger ethnicity than our timeline
@@TheHunterOfYharnam I'm not so sure about Bulgarians. They had their own script and independent identity and Byzantine grasp on the region after it was pacified by Basil II was always more limited to trade routes, Urban centres and fortifications. I think it is telling that the Bulgarians still had a large population after so many years of Ottoman rule as well. But there would definetly be a big Greek/Roman population living in the Urban Centres and Rumelia after a few centuries.
@@michaelpsellos2560 If we controlled Bulgaria for a thousand years they would have been long assimilated
kinda late but in ww1 the byzantines would probably side- no, be part of the entente. Especially since Russia was part of it. It would also mean ww1 would be much shorter since there wouldnt be a prolonged balkan front since the Greeks and Russians would easily take on the austrians which would lead to germany being pressured from all sides. That could also mean no communist revolution and ww2 being either shorter. No communism means no cold war and without the cold war empires would probably remain and colonies wouldnt be stripped off completely from anyone (at least only partially). But before WW1 etc etc there could be wars of the Orthodox east with the Catholic West and probably protestants later on. That war would probably end in stalemate
I do wonder if the Eastern Romans would be interested in the Caucasus? Or would there be a strong and united Kingdom of Georgia between them and Russia?
Fourth crusade could still happen salong as they elect not to and in the succession crise in the empire and is form against Venice that they will be repayed.
One question what about the black plague wouldn't that stall the byzantines from taking back anitolia? Besides that I love it and was a great video!
I don't think Rome/Byzantium wouldn't have joined the central powers in world war 1 mainly because it had/has been in competition with Austria and Hungary for control over the Balkan's, and instead it probably would've remained neutral with it probably joining the allies after America joined in on the side of the allies (basically like otl Greece). It's involvement in world war 2 be bit more up in the air and it would depend on the two power-hungry mad-men in charge of Italy and Germany, but in all likely hood it would remain neutral in that war. The cold war wouldn't have happened either as Russia with Roman/Byzantine help would modernize and industrialize much sooner in this timeline (by 1908 at the latest) likely avoiding the absolute nightmare that was the Russian Revolution and the wonderfully awful side affects of that.
Wow, no Ottoman emipre!
1204 the most cursed day in history.
So chritian turkey and greece unified? With maybe parts of bulgaria, serbia and albania
Safavids will not conquer Iran in this timeline the reason for this is that the safavid Dynasty was linked to Aq Qoyunlu ( White sheep ) , Aq Qoyunlu themselves were linked to the komenenos family as they royal married them , this happened when the komenenos family ruled the empire of Trabzond which will not exist in this timeline keep in mind that the Aq Qoyunlu managed to conquer persia due to Hasan Uzun " he wouldn't exist in this scenario as he is too linked to the komenenos "
But that won't Change the religion in persia as Iran in this timeline will remain under the rule of Qara Qoyunlu " Black sheep " they were Shia Muslims and Azeris.
No Kara Koyunlu didn’t conquer Persia, they owned Azerbaijan and Mesopotamia mostly, the many Timurid breakaway states ruled Persia before the Safavids came.
Interesting video. I really hope you make more of these.
One thing tho. What's stopping Bulgarians and South Slavs from wanting independence tho? Especially Bulgaria since they have been historically a rival to Byzantines, and both might wanna resist 'Greek-ruled' empire.
Are the Turks of Anatolia Hellenized in this timeline? If not, wouldn't they also want independence, due to huge cultural differences between them and Greeks?
Thanks man. I mentioned in the video that the Bulgarians would be assimilated into Greek culture, and my end map of Byzantium didn't include the other slavic land. Yes, the Turks would have been hellenised, which was likely given Greek Christians were still present in those regions of Anatolia at that time.
This assimiliation is highly unlikely especially around 1200. The Bulgarians had just liberated themselves and they had one of their greatest kings back them with some important alliances also. They were on the rise and Constantinople was already a bit weak - conquering them would not be possible for the next 50 years at least - so, maybe their only chance was in Anatolya.
@@HistorysInfluence You clearly underestimate us.
What if the Crusader States never collapsed?
If only Saladin didn't exist
How Europe made the Balkans poor, before they were even aware they were a thing.
So in other words the Roman empire would still exist.
Pretty much my look on this love you look on it.
How about if the Incan rebel state survived in Peru. The portion in the Amazon that lasted years after the rest fell.
Another great look would be theordoric the greats kingdom of Italy.
.
The neo-Incan state is quite fascinating. I'm considering doing a Justinian alternate timeline, perhaps if he never did the invasions at all, which would have a big impact upon the ostrogoths.
I highly doubt they would conquer much past central Anatolia given how useless the Angelos were
As I said I agree, a civil war would have caused different and more competent leadership to arise.
If the Byzantine Empire survived into the modern day, then we'd basically have a European equivalent of the United States.
I dubt that Timur who conquered much of anatolia in 1406 would enter in war with the Empire. And possibly siege Constantinople. But it us possible Byzantine have access to plate armor and cannons in this tineline. Olso a strong byzantium could attract the mongols in 1240 once they leraned about some rich cities west of anatolia.
Bro make more videos. How do you only have 77 subs?! wtf.
free greek konsantinupolis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ottoman Empire is gerad op
You could just as easily say that without the Ottomans, Bosnia and Herzegovina couldn't have been annexed by the Austrians, Archduke Franz Ferdinand therefore doesn't get assassinated by Serb nationalists, no WWI, no fascism or communism, no WWII, no broken Europe, no decolonisation.
The problem is that it's almost impossible to predict even the next six months after an event changes, let alone 800 years. I get that this is all a bit of historical fanfic and a bit of fun, though, so I'll try to be less of a pedant. If was still well researched and professionally executed :)
My argument was not about the same type of WWI or WWII occurring, but instead similar conflicts occurring and having similar results. My argument would be that the European balance of power wars were already occurring before 1204, and that the great acceleration of Europe will still occur. If these two things hold true, then there would inevitably be a European balance of power war using mechanised warfare like in WWI, and this would most likely have similar effects (Europeans starting to doubt themselves etc). Communism or a similar equivalent is likely to form out of a worker's rights movement, which is essentially guaranteed if an Industrial revolution occurs, at least in my view. Fascism or an equivalent far right movement would likely find roots after such a devastating conflict as well.
Essentially my argument revolves around the major factors causing WWI, WWII, fascism and communism in the long term still occurring, so it would make sense a similar conflict to those two would still occur in this timeline and cause similar results, and similar political movements to occur.
My argument is based on the idea that WWI was essentially inevitable regardless of Franz Ferdinand, but that's a specific view of history not all people agree with. Anyway I had fun writing this justification, was just trying to explain that this video was not meant as a fanfic kinda one, and I have justifications for why equivalents to WWI, communism etc would still occur. I appreciate the support as well.
Maybe use video clips in your content, as well as pictures. It can give a clearer visual representation in some cases and seems more professional. Also, your voice is a bit quiet (unnatural if that makes sense?), almost like you're trying to be discreet. Maybe speak like you'd speak to a friend or sibling, or just speak louder in general. It will engage your audience more than you'd expect.
Good advice, apologies this comment will held for review for some reason so I didn’t see it until checking now. I will definitely be taking this advice on board.
in a better timeline islam wouldn’t have existed in the first place
There would also be no muslim ethnic groups forming in the Balkans, butterflying away OTL Bosniaks, and no Great Migrations of the Serbs, so ITTL the majority of the Bosnians would have likely been assimilated into the Croat identity while under the Kingdom of Hungary.
The house of Osman could have risen since turks had setteled anatolia ever since manzikert so we could see them in classic roman imperial fasion overthrow the emperor by military force since for generations they had extremely compentant leadership at the start. So we could have seen a couple of muslim emperors from the house of osman
My 1000th byz eu4 run
Relatable
Eastern roman empire*
If the 4th never happened, majority of Asia Minor and the Balkans would be speaking Bulgarian right now.
No lol, this is very inaccurate.
bro is glazing bulgaria
Smartest Bulgarian nationalist
This.
When I first learned about rhe 4th crusade, I revoked my Papacy Loyality Card.
Later I learned what christians did to library of Alexandria I left it for good.
Personally, I have nothing against believers, I just coudn't stay in line and suppprt it anymore. Blindly followimg orders isn't my thing.
not all christians, and all religions were like that back then
😂😂😂Byzantines would never and I mean never recover Anatolia from the chad Turks. Byzantines were fully inc@ls by the 4th crusade. If the crusade never happened they would have just turned in on themselves and fought their 49th, 50th and 51st virg/n cixil war.
Imagine what beautiful orthodox Roman Christian churches we would have, if they survived… Look up at the Russian Church of armed forces near Moscow for example…
There would be chance that Christian Jerusalem would have succeeded, many Christians would visit it like the Muslims do in Mecca.
The Byzantines were not Roman,nothing but a glorified Greek Kingdom with non Latin Eastern Christianity,the HRE was the real continuation,end of the story.
Lol rage bait
Here is a "what if?" What if Prince Henry Stuart had never swam across the Thames in 1612, & subsequently died of typhoid? There is so much tragedy in England and Ireland that unfolded all because some haughty young prince decided to swim across a polluted river. Namely, Charles who never wanted, and was never groomed for the crown becomes the next Stuart king of England, fails miserably because he is completely in over his head, is deposed & beheaded. Under the Protectorate led by Oliver Cromwell, the genocide against the Irish goes into high gear. And for all the tragedy that this generation has occurred, Parliament ends up recalling Charles II to be King in England. All this because some dumb kid had to show off & swim the Thames.
I've heard of the civil war and such, but I never knew about Prince Henry Stuart before. Quite a tragic story. Sometime in the near future an Anglo-Saxon alt history will be coming out, but it would definitely be interesting to cover a more recent English timeline, perhaps involving the civil war.
@@HistorysInfluence TY for noticing my request. I really do think it is one worth exploring.
However, they wouldn’t be called Byzantines. They would call themselves Roman.
Sometimes when I refer to Byzantium as Rome people say "Rome didn't exist in that period" :(
not necessarily by 1000 ad the byzantines were starting to use the name hellenes as well
it could go kinda like it did in our timeline
refering to ourselves mostly as romioi and using the word greek as secondary
until the 20th century when we start using the word greek over the word roman
also i think that perhaps the bulgarians wouldn't be assimilated that easily but by our time i think some would be assimilated and the rest would be way fewer than the greeks in thrace to be considered a problem
same probably with the turks
also in the colonialism think i don't think egypt and the levant would be separate from the empire because they are connected by land
i also think that the byzantine empire or Rhomania as we called it would have ended up as a greek ethnic state
perhaps with 2 small minorities, one bulgarian and one turkish that as time would go by would disapear by assimilation and other means
egypt and the levant wouldn't be majority greek (perhaps lebanon and parts of syria would)
the rest could regain independence just later? cause if the byzantines were to hold on to those regions
they would have to grow their population considerable and keep those places with lower population
managing 100 million people in egypt would be a challenge
but definetly the greeks today would be a much much larger ethnicity too
globaly there are 17-18 million greeks today
but if the forced assimilations of the 12th century didn't happen
and the genocides didn't happen either
perhaps the greeks would be at least 50 million today if not more taking in to account that it would be powerful economically, it would be very industrialized, a major player in global affairs ect ect
to be honest i think it would eventually annex serbia croatia and south italy too
but who knows
@@TheHunterOfYharnam I wish 1204 never happen 😢😢
@@HistorysInfluencethe “Byzantines” are the remnants of the Roman Empire
3:15 i dont think the byzantines were competent enough for that much gains. When the abassids collapsed for example, the byzantines only took a small strip down to antioch. They would at best, push to antioch again and never take east anatolia. If they dont just distract themselves with civil wars while the turkic tribes recover.
really unlikely that turks would be hellenised imo. there is no real analogue for mass invaders who overrun byzantine lands getting assimilated (besides maybe the germanic tribes) and the turks wouldnt just have a strong tribal and religious identity, but theirs would be well suited for the central anatolian steppe and the hills of anatolia overall. in fact they wouldnt be getting assimilated but they wouldve probably continued to assimilate and weaken byzantine control in the area, very similarly to how slavs overran and eventually assimilated the balkans. conquering inner anatolia would be impossible as the semi-nomadic herders would have an unmistakable advantage in the area and the omnipresent tribal bandits would constantly harass byzantine authority and armies. the most byzantium could do is conquer western anatolia and force the east to accept vassalage, and even this would only last as long as constantinople had good leadership. anatolia would be like the balkans here - it would be filled with invader people for most of the areas except the coasts (and even then some areas like paphlagonia and cilicia would still be overrun) and byzantium would be lucky if they could christianise even one turkish beylik. byzantium could subjugate anatolia in strong phases, but any place outside the marmara and coastal aegean region (though the hinterland of the aegean area might be hellenised the same way nikephoros i forcefully expelled slavs from greece and replaces them with anatolian greeks, but then again who knows if greece and coastal anatolia alone have enough greeks) would be tumultuous. anatolia would never become a heartland again, it would slip away more and more as it had been solidifed in myriokephalon
One question WTF Crussade attak Bulgara Empire and Bizantyne Empite .Maybe Crussade anti christian ?Bulgarian Powerful Fist Smah arogance Crusader and anti chistian coalicion in Odrin 1205
You are siding alot with byzantium when timur attacks anatolia the hungarans could and would attack then venetian and genoes would hider trade and conquerer islands the mongols and if baibars of mamulaks still acends he would attack anatolia and you are also forgetting turkic miagratons and unrest along with that russia has the manpower to invade thru the balkans
Hey! In this video you mentioned that the Bulgarians would be easy to assimilate, due to their defiance of Byzantium and having a weak national identity. This is very wrong! The Bulgarians were actually one of the *first* medieval nations with a national identity, which was a very important goal of rulers in the first Bulgarian Empire, and Asen's rebellion was also the first instance of nationalism in Europe. In addition, Bulgaria had a very flourishing literature which existed during both Byzantine and Ottoman rule. You also seem to overestimate the ability of the Byzantine Empire, and forget that they had a very laissez-faire approach to minorities and foreign peoples (by your logic, Albanians should have been nonexistent for at least 1000 years)
Can anyone understand this youtubers English??...sounds like he's from the extreme south of new zealand??