Honestly the Romans had a good run. I was very surprised when I first learned they existed all the way to 1453, considering Rome was founded over 2200 years prior.
@@hithere640 Rule number 1 of playing in Europe. 11th December 1444 = no cb vassalise Byzantium. I see no reason Byzantium should be exempt from this rule.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard Yeah but him being alive pretty much meant Constantinople falling. He revolutionized war in Europe just to be able to take Constantinople.
He wouldn't have even thought about that if it wasn't due to how dangerous and annoying they are. Very simple. Before Mohammad and time before that. Make an alliance with them, pay money and be a loyal frind as parenters as a client stilight puppet state with an autonomous status. Don't do problems and don't b annoying. Mind your own business. Distant yourself from rest of Europe and other Christian powers. Don't intervene in Ottoman affairs. Be friendly and a support to the ottomans. Then it would have stayed up to WW1 or even today.
Demetrios Palaiologos sort of reminds me of Andronikos I Komnenos, always causing trouble for his more competent family, jumping from one foreign court to another, but escapes responsibility multiple times because he "very sincerely apologized". Thankfully Demetrios never became the Emperor, or Constantinople would have fallen just like Rome in 476, "with a whimper".
yes, lol I guess in case of Demetrios there is the issue of Ottoman backing. Andronikos is just: "... conspired to murder the emperor, but was caught. He realised the error of his ways, fell on the knees before Manuel and begged for forgiveness. Manuel spared his life and made him a governor. Two years later Andronikos rose in rebellion against Manuel..."
@@Michael_the_Drunkard The worst thing is let a rebellious men governorship, he may got mercy to not be killed but to get ownership of a region? That's even more than a blunder move. If I was Manuel I would at least lock him at home and do the dishes rather than let him do whatever he what.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard The Medieval Roman's Christian Mercy should have been alike that of Basil II. He was merciful, but only a couple of times; if you repeated your misdeeds, you would be blinded, and sent to a monastery or a prison cell to beg for God's mercy, since the Roman Emperor's has expired.
He's only mentioned briefly, but I want to underscore just how much of a chad Giovanni Giustiniani was. This is a guy who spoke, at least well enough to command people in, like a half dozen different languages, possibly with mercs from as far away as Scotland. He was considered one of the foremost experts on defensive sieges, and it was he who was left in charge of keeping the rag-tag groups of foreigners and different interests in Constantinople stitched together and working well - which he did, training regular-ass people in the use of modern weaponry with what little time he had. Man genuinely pulled off the 'You must be swift as a coursing river!" thing but like, for real, since the detachment of people he led held out basically until the end. He'd learned from prior sieges and was adept at employing all kinds of incredibly effective unorthodox defences that weren't common at the time, and even mounted counter-attacks on the Ottomans. You could not have asked for a better man to be behind the walls, he'd have made everyone from Agrippa to Aetius, Belisarius to Maurice, proud. Some writers claim that he was a coward but a coward doesn't hold as fast and fight as hard as Giovanni did, I will die on that hill. Though if I do it won't be holding the position as effectively as Giovanni would've. People talk about Constantine's heroism, but everyone forgets Giovanni; just as, if not more, of a badass than Constantine was.
Giustiniani was no coward. He only left the battlefield when he was unable to carry on. From what I have read a bullet pierced his fighting hand and then exited it, striking his chest. He could not fight any longer.
I don't think he is underrated we remember him in modern day Greece as one of the only heroes of the siege (Kinda hard for a whole country and especially Greece to rememeber a foreigner as a hero) . The emperor is just more famous because he was an emperor at least in name and therefore it would have been much easier for him to turn tail and run which he didn't.
If we're starting at 1444, we all know what the Byzantines should have done. Start building galleys everywhere, delete the fort in Morea, attack Epyrus and vassalise them, attacked the Ottomans, Island trap their armies and win.
The biggest things that broke Rome: The 3rd Century Crisis Adrianople The Huns The Germans The Plague of Justinian The loss of Egypt (mostly happened because of the plague) The battle of Manzikirt (lead to the loss of Anatolia) The sack of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade Remove any one of these and Rome's chance increaes drastically, I think.
Anatolia was already lost to the Arabs, all Turks had to do is to steamroll the enemy. Mountainous Anatolia is perfect location to defend against horse archers in defensive situations if you implement mounted infantry tactics like Timur did. But Arabs did the main damage by conquering almost all of anatolia and dealing with local troops with their light infantry and light cavalry, which are perfect for skirmishes in uneven terrain such as in Anatolia. Then again, I would still argue that Bulgars, Slavs and most importantly Crusaders did the most damage. You could reconquer Anatolia with naval supremacy and by "slicing" the territories like Union did in US Civil War. But you have to secure the Balkans first. And you cannot easily reconquer Balkan peninsula. Tldr: Too little too late.
And if you read about the Turkish account of Manzikert, you will see that All turks did to divide and trap the separate Roman armies and scouts. The victory was not happened in the location near Manzikert, it happened all in the Eastern anatolia with strategy and logistics. So the problem in Roman army was deeper than a simple battle, or mistakes of a single general: It was a mistake of them not securing the inner anatolia and establishing supply routs. You cannot act aggressively in Eastern Anatolia, you have to use Flavian Tactics instead of attempting to one hit the Turkish army, and motivate the locals to defend the land and support your cause. Which also means that even if you somehow defeat the Turks, either they will retreat and invade with another army, or another power will march into Anatolia, because you did not secured anatolia first. Also both accounts mention that Greek and Muslim raiders were attacking each others settlements, and warbands beyond the frontier making small war deep in the Byzantine lands. And Turkish accounts mention that Alp Arslan raised his army to not conquer Rome, but to move east and dealing with the Egyptians in the support of Khalif. Sending a large army directly to Alp Arslan and spooking him into fighting you was a big mistake.
Of all these, the loss of Anatolia was the most avoidable. The Turks just wanted some tribute payments as they were preparing to march on Egypt. The new Emperor who deposed Romanos IV Diogenes opted to not pay those tribute payments, and the desolation of Anatolia was the result. Second would be the 4th Crusade Sack. Just don't kill the Byzantine Emperor allied with them. They were literally just waiting to get paid until their client emperor got killed and the new emperor ordered an attack on the Crusader camp, which led to the Crusaders counter-attacking and sacking the city in frustration due to what they felt was a betrayal.
@bastiat The situation can be better described as a result of previous unfortunate decisions rather than something fundamentally foolish. It was an unfavorable idea with limited alternatives due to financial constraints and the inadequate military strength of the empire during that period.
Not to mention the Byzies making enemies of Frederick Barbarossa instead of assisting him, the dude roflstomped the Turks and took half of central Anatolia within a month, he would have perhaps given it to the Byzies had they not decided to silently ally themselves with Saladin, perhaps Frederick would have not even died in that river if he went a more lenient, Byzie supported route in that scenario.
I think the best thing about your analysis here is admitting that even if your strategy pays off, the Empire most likely merely survives, rather than revives. Which I think is being honest, no matter how fun it is to successfully retake your cores in EU4. By the time of Varna the sad fact is Constantinople depended on the favour of other powers for any sort of independence, and I think the Demetrios Appeasement plan would have died with Murad II, Mehmed was clearly spoiling for conquest. Even if Varna went off without a hitch, it isn't likely the Empire would directly recover much land. Each of the "ERE doomed after year X" dates are more about the Emperor losing more and more ability to dictate or negotiate with others, instead having to plead. I think by Varna the empire had little ability to pursue any kind of independent foreign agenda. Was that threshold crossed in 1204? 1341? Was an opportunity to reclaim it in 1402 missed? Who knows? And it's unlikely any emperor would be able to over-leverage their resources to somehow build an army that can deter or even beat the Ottomans in open battle, unlike in EU4.
It's kinda why I don't like alt-history and specifically picked the smaller timespan. The amount of "what ifs" rises exponentially the farther back we go.
@@RomabooRamblings Agreed. My biggest problem with "alt-hist" videos/channels, is that they're more "alt-fiction", and doesn't give you any new insights or inferences of the history they're portraying. Your video was phenomenal and taught me so much about this time period that I didn't know, while at the same time entertaining an interesting and reasonable "what if". Brilliant job, mate.
I guess the interesting question, sort of skipped over here, is what if the Crusaders had actually won at Varna, and had inflicted a bad-to-shattering defeat on the Ottomans? Mesembria was not too far south of Varna, so the Crusader army would likely have reached the relative safety of Byzantine territory with ease. What then? Do they proceed to besiege Adrianople? Do they wait and try to get further reinforcements from the West? And if the Crusade does actually come away with a victory (presumably not totally driving the Ottomans out of Europe, but severely checking them and forcing concessions), who gets what?
@@pabodie8219 I recon you will really like Possible History. He gives a lot of context and puts a lot of effort to keep everything plausible (and also isn't a massive nationalist like most channels of this genre).
For anyone interested in the matter, Finnish writer Mika Waltari wrote a book called "Johannes Angelos". It is a historical novel telling the fictional story of the titular Johannes, who participates in the defense of Constantinople. Actual historical characters like Giovanni Giustiniani are featured in it too. I recommend it, really makes you wanna die at the walls of such a holy city
The thing about the medieval ERE was that it was given plenty of chances to recover but time and time again a variety of circumstances caused Byzantium to dig its own grave further. Manzikert ensured that the Empire would no longer be able to retake the Levant and Egypt (at least without the help of the West) Myriokephalon effectively stopped the reconquests of the Komnenid Dynasty, and of course the sack by the Fourth Crusade undid their progress altogether. However, when Constantinople was retaken in 1261, the Byzantines still had half of Greece and the western third of Anatolia, and could theoretically be able to restore at least the pre-Fourth Crusade borders. It was the two civil wars of the Palaiologian Dynasty that finally broke Byzantium's back altogether leading us to this situation in 1444
Thank you so much for mentioning Mani!!! The Toparchy of Maina stood alone, and all that separated it from the Ottoman Empire in 1461 AD was a strip of borderlands in its borders with Messenia and Laconia, given by Krokodeilos Kladas to Venice so that the Venetians would defend Mani. By that time, many fleeing elements of administrators, militarymen and politicians had fled there from New Rome and Mystras/Patras, and Toparchy of Mani was reorganized based on the local administration as the Maniot Republic, based on a Lacedaemonian/Laconian/Maniot Senate in Oitylo. In 1481 AD the Ottoman Turks would invade and the Venetians would just give these borderlands to the Turks, which began a 13 year long Maniot-Turkish War, in which the lowlands of Northern Mani and Middle Mani was captured, but the highlands of Northern Mani and Southern Mani were still free, from which the Maniots managed to eventually push out the Turks, and even wage a counter attack in 1493 AD in Southern Laconia, until their attempt to free Monemvasia was halted and Krokodeilos Kladas was captured and impaled by the Turks. Yet still, even in the 1520s AD we do hear of Kladiotes leading the Maniots and wreaking havoc in Southern Laconia, while the Maniot Republic being still free, sovereign and independent, exactly as it was for the next 3 centuries until it liberated half the Morea in 1821 AD and formed the First Hellenic Republic!!!
@@rfkwouldvebeenaok1008 Here are some English sources. The matterial on this matter is mostly in Greek, French and Italian, barely in English: • Morritt, John Bacon Sawrey “The Letters of John B. S. Morritt of Rokeby; Descriptive of Journeys in Europe and Asia Minor in the Years 1794-1796”, edited by G. E. Marindin, Published by John Murray, 1914, London, Albemarle Street • Leake, Martin William. “Travels in the Morea”. Volume 1, Published by John Murray Albemarle Street. 1840. London. • Gell, William. “Narrative of a Journey in the Morea”. Published by Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, And Brown. 1823. London. • Gundogdu, Birol. “Ottoman Constructions of the Morea Rebellion, 1770s: A Comprehensive Study of Ottoman Attitudes to the Greek Uprising”. University of Toronto. 2012. Toronto. • Seifried, Rebecca M. “The Shifting Tides of Empires: Using GIS to Contextualize Population Change Within the Landscape of Seventeenth to Nineteenth-Century Mani, Greece”. Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 • Randolph, Bernard. “The present state of the Morea, called anciently Peloponnesus: together with a description of the city of Athens, islands of Zant, Strafades, and Serigo”. Printed, sold by Will. Notts, Tho. Basset, and Thomas Bennet. 1689. London. • Galt, John. “Voyages and Travels in the Years 1809, 1810, and 1811: Containing Statistical, Commercial, and Miscellaneous Observations on Gibralter, Sardinia, Sicily, Malta, Serigo, and Turkey”. Published by T. Cadell and W. Davies, Strand. 1812. London.
A decaying Empire: 1261-1453 By the fourteenth century, the J’3ωι5Η question of Byzantium seemed to be most concerned with Venetian J’3ω5. Venetians had come to reside in the Empire in large numbers by the early 14th century, and treaties between the Empire and Venice granted the Venetians living in the empire, including J’3ω5 of Venetian origin, special privileges, though they also carried certain minor economic prohibitions. Under the aegis of these treaties, Venetian J’3ω5 could buy, sell or rent land anywhere in Constantinople. They also enjoyed a more favorable tax structure than Byzantine citizens, as well as the freedom of movement and settlement anywhere in the Empire.[47] Further complicating this legal status, some J’3ω5 obtained Venetian citizenship either "by coming from areas subject to the Republic or by purchasing naturalization", thus obtaining the same privileges as Venetian nationals in the Empire.[48] At this time, the Empire was in rapid decay, and could not seriously enforce laws intended to curtail these rights and regain economic control within its borders. Thus, an exception to the general trend of Byzantine history emerged during this century, whereby J’3ω5 were entitled to a broader set of rights than Christians…. “
Listened to this video while playing EU4 as Aragon, trying to vassalize Byz. Of course things could always be better, but it was very very difficult to find a better way.
Did this in a eu4 mp game as aragon pissed off all the main players. Lol was fun everyone gets mad at me but admit without me the game ain't fun. I know how to get everyone feathers fluffed. But I did kept claiming to be the true heir of Rome and attacked and took Rome, the ottomans and muscovy was mad, France and Tunis mad, english,and Sweden laughing. The Asian league thinking aragon is bad 😂
I actually like how you structured your alternative history scenario. Most alternative history on youtube is very surface level cause they try to cover events over several decades and make the scope too big so we can't really cover over maybe 1/2 factors, here we got an essentially in-depth analysis.
Rome was doomed to fall when Romulus killed Remus because it put the act of fratricide on a mythical pedestal, therefore making betrayal a more accepted and righteous act in the mind of the potential betrayer. This contributes to the internal strife and civil wars that severely weakened Rome. There 😏😏😏
So a city based on trade would've been better? If Reme was actually built it would've just became a Venice on a river far from any real trade. Romulus was wrong but had brains
Remus’ fratricide caused the fall of Rome because the Ottomans figured out the only way to become the New Rome is to copy Old Rome. That’s why the Ottomans made fratricide a state policy allowing stable succession.
Based on your last points, I have suggestions on what the Roman Greeks could have done after a successful defence of the 1453 AD Siege of New Rome, and ensure the Roman State would be in a better place by the early 16th century AD: * After a spectacular failure to capture the City, Mehmed II's position in power would be very shaky. After all, the 21 year old Sultan began this endeavour to capture New Rome in the first place in order to strenghten his position in the Ottoman Government, especially after the attempted coups he faced due to being doubts that he was a worthy successor of Murad II. It would be the best time for Constantine Paleologos to release Orhan Celebi from his hostage in Constantinople, and support him in an attempt to rally forces against a disgraced Mehmed II. In this way, there might be a Second Ottoman Civil War, like the one that had saved Constantinople 4 decades earlier. Having just failed in his attempt to capture New Rome, Mehmed II would be unable to try again even if he wanted, and the morale would be shattered in face of any idea to try it again in the years right after 1453 AD, perhaps even decades after it. *The Despotate of Morea indeed could have served as a new base for expansion of the Roman Greeks. The project of Constantine Paleologos was right, his campaigns of reconquest in Southern Greece would have been benefitial in the long run had their fruits been allowed to ripe. The good thing with the Morea is that it is simultaneously both insular and continential, so it could function both as a stepping poing for expansion of sea power and eventually the reconquest of the Aegean and Ionian Sea, while also liberating the Greek Mainland. Yet I feel that the importance of Peloponnese's defence should not be ignored either; with the failure of the Hexamilion Wall, I feel that a victory in the 1453 AD Siege of Constantinople for the Roman Greeks should make them decide to construct the Cannal of Corinth, like Greece did in reality in 1893 AD. All one needs is manpower and shovels to achieve this. In this manner, it would be virtually impossible for a land force from Greece to march into the Morea, and only with a naval landing would it be possible to conquer it. The Romans should be able to march out of it with wooden bridges. Even better if the Romans constructed later a New Corinth around the Cannal, having complete control of it, acting as a capital of a Despotate of Greece.
@@RomabooRamblings Perhaps. I could not find if they used explosives back in the 1880s and 1890s. But still, all you need to break rock is sledgehammers and a couple thousand dedicated men using them properly, just like how they did in mines since Antiquity. And it is not as if it was undoable; even as far back as Nero they had been planning it, but usually did not since there were no pressing military or economic benefits. Even as far as the Corinthians in the 6th century BC they could have done this - and in fact they did create a cannal that turned the Leucas Peninsula into an Island, Leukada, but they did not do so because the Delphi Oracle would not give her blessing. The Roman Greeks could have used work in the Cannal as a way to avoid taxes, a practice that was not unheard off at the time; the Italians did the same in Greece, though they usually forced it. And after all, it is well known that "a soldier who digs, lives". In this light, I have been wondering recently whether the Roman Greeks could have modernized the Theodosian Walls against contemporary artillery, by simply protecting the wall's exterior side with a hill-slide of dirt. All they would have needed was manpower, shovels and transporting the dirt. In this manner the cannon balls, no matter how large, whould have simply struck and splattered the soft dirt and not the wall behind it. Nothing too complicated, simply the basics for anti-artillery walls in the 17th century AD. As for the dirt, in the same time it could have been taken from extended constructions for second or third lines of moats in front of the Theodosian Walls, especially useful for the age of long ranged firearms. The Roman Greeks should have been able to deduce all that after a successful defence of the 1453 AD Siege of New Rome, so I think these actions might have been reasonable and useful for New Rome's protection in the second half of the 15th century AD...
Thanks for the tips i will make sure to implement it in the next timeline i change. I tried to save constantinople 54 times(And only 9 timelines worked and only 1 of the timeline's rome managed to be restored, the other 8 perished in the 16th-20th centuries or continued as small and irrelevant)
@@RomabooRamblings Indeed, maintaining a delicate power balance in the Balkans was crucial for the survival of the Romans. Striking a balance ensured that no single nation could grow excessively powerful. However, should the Romans aspire to expand their influence, they would inevitably need to engage in a conflict with one of the nations necessary for the balance. Such a confrontation would risk creating a dominant power that could ultimately bring about the demise of the empire.
@@RomabooRamblings The 1 that did succeed though, did managed to recover the balkans,anatolia,levant and italy and had a mediocre run as a colonial power(but not in the americas.) In the 21st century they were quite high up though as the other colonial powers faded and so did they but they retained the territories i mentioned above. With a sizeable population of 225 million, 1.1 million active personnel and a gdp of 4.84 trillion. Gdp per capita=41,664$
Manzikert definitely didn’t help. But the Roman Empire had recovered from disastrous battles before. Good grief if they could survive Canne with Hannibal at the walls! But what has to be looked at that wasn't present in other defeats was gunpowder! Technology had caught up to the days of staying behind great walled defensive structures.
Arguably, the walls could have held up better had the Romans reconfigured them for modern warfare. Of course, this would have required time, money and foresight.
The walls weren't defeated tho they had a gate open that's the reason the city fell. Not because the walls failed. They still stand to this day of course not in its old glory.
Must say, you have a talent for analysing a situation, planning how to create advantages & mitigate disadvantages, and making realistic conclusions. Grateful you're on UA-cam.
I thought that this was a really fantastic video. All to often what-if history stuff is more fantasty than reality and also based on a very poor understanding of either the events or the general circumstances. This was really well researched and considered and offered very realistic alternatives. I would mention that Constantine XI made a mistep against the Venetians by introducing a wine and hides tax on the Venetians to raise more money. It is believed that Constantine's betrothal to the Venetian Doge was considered but not very far advanced. There is no record of it in any source other than Sphrantzes but the match probably was considered. I believe COnstantine's diplomatic gambit with Mehmed II comes from Doukas 34.2, though not an eyewitness source they, he did have access to Turkish sources so it may reflect the official Turkish casus belli for the war. Also Constantine may have gambled that Mehmed would have accepted since he was fighting Karaman at the time. It was ill-timed but I would not discount it not absolve Constantine from making such a mistake. Just some helpful notes.
@@RomabooRamblings 1. Yeah, 2nd last then. 2. Thank you so much! If you do make the video, I guarantee that you'll get a minimum of 50K views from us alone, as the youth here love their history, especially concerning Rome
Dude, its like less than 10 years, and both conquered by the same guy. There wasn't much of a challenge and it is not like Mehmet is going to conquer other territories first so historians could pinpoint the specific year.
Not having endless civil war every goddamn day. Even when Roman become Ottoman tributary they still have the time for civil war(by using Ottoman patron this time to win the civil war)
A realistic divergent point could be either John Komnenos not dying in a hunting accident and/or Manuel Komnenos' child dying in childbirth meaning he has to keep Bela as his heir. I am still not too well versed in the 12th century but I'd imagine this allows more victories and Emperor Bela as Alexios II would be more beneficial than the timeline we live in.
I’m still impressed that the Romans and their continuations essentially took what would shatter most nations and survive this long and it was due to a relentless Mehmed II who had the skill and power to actually take out Constantinople which can be seen as the final nail for the Byzantines being able to bounce back.
George Sphranzes mentions several illness outbreaks in the Ottoman camp a week before the City fell. Alongside with reinforcements from Hungary and Venice, as you are already suggesting, Mehmet's armies could face total obliteration on the field, possibly even the Sultan's death.
Παλαιολόγος, what a badass Emperor he was, fought until the end and never surrendered. Even today a few people like me for example say that our Emperor never surrendered nor made a treaty and don't care what the rest of the world says and thinks but we will take Constantinople back, and not only Constantinople.
Constantinople is truly Roman and also Anatolia and Armenia. Konstantinos died for Constantinople. It's sad and frustrating to forget of the great Roman city. We can't just forget about it. It seems like the world just wants to forget about it, but I still don't as it is a huge insult to see Turkish names on Roman soil. Only someone brave and great will restore the Roman state.
@@dannyvader007 Even those turkish names are made from Greek names, this is how pathetic the turks are, try and find a single city the turks build, there is none. It’s all interest my friend the West supports turkey out of interest, they turn a blind eye on all the crimes turkey committed all the genocides they killed millions of people, but wait and see, once they stop supporting them it will be turkeys end. And this end will come soon have patience and you will see!
Not surprised that the video of Balkans history attracts some Balkan nationalists... Next thing you know, Austria is rightful German clay, Akhand Bharat should be a thing, and Ukraine is historic Russian land.
It's difficult to avoid the "ERE's history is one long decline" narrative when it's territory peaked with Justinian in the sixth century and for the next 900 years it just kept losing ground.
Theirs the Makedon dynasty and basil the second who greatly expanded the empires borders theirs the komenoi restoration which went from a few costal ports in Anatolia to controlling half of Anatolia in only a few decades. The Byzantine empire in the stock markets would be like a bunch of rises and falls but most rises of the stock price are 1 cent below the previous on average.
Even with it shrinking territorially from period to period, there's also the fact that it increasingly consolidated itself in terms of government and grew more economically powerful in the long run. I think I remember reading that the Komnenian period may have been the wealthiest Rome had been since the Heraclians.
Brilliant EU4 references! Subscribed! Btw, Demetrios Palailogos sounds totally like Loki, a treacherous slimy brother of Konstantinos who would be the Thor, except all of them defeated by the Ottoman Thanos Mehmed II.
Manzikert wasn’t the deathnail imo. It was the sack of 1204. Or even Michael VIII’s issues. They could’ve reconquered Anatolia imo, maybe not with ease but it was more than doable if just a few things were different.
I've always felt that the Battle of Yarmouk was actually the turning point in Byzantine history. Had they won, that might have terminated the Islamic invasions entirely as the entire strength of the Muslim armies was there. With that loss, and the increasing fervor of the Muslim fighters, further encroachment became inevitable. Also, had the West and Byzantium been able to bury the hatchets regarding Catholic vs Orthodox, a united Christendom would have been impossible to penetrate.
A follow up strategy to your strategy could have been to send the Turkish Pretender after Mehmed’s death (if he died in the siege) in exchange for Gallipoli. Or to send the pretender to cause instability, and invade Gallipoli with the combined force from Morea and Constantinople, under the Emperor’s leadership. Thus, the reclamation of Thessaly (as you claim in your strategy) the reclamation of Thrace (the areas surrounding Gallipoli) could have given the Romans even more decades to live for. They could then have made ottoman invasions of the balkans more difficult or time consuming( they would have to either cross through the Romans or land somewhere else). I believe that the concessions to Hungary could also be reclaimed when/if Hungary goes into instability or when their monarch dies.
Why does nobody ever talk about how Byzantium was doing well both economically and militarily, including retaking swathes of Anatolia from the Seljuks, until the 4th crusade in 1204 and never recovered from the Crusaders' sacking
Really cool take on alternate history here. Appreciate the small scale and the attention to factual analysis here as opposed to the "Constantine XI reconquers Britain and colonizes the moon" wankery. Wouldn't mind seeing more of these occasionally. Would be cool to devise a similar strategy for the Romans to beat the Arabs during the 7th Century for instance. Even more ballsy if you're able to come up with one after Yarmouk.
I was thinking about this kinda vids lately, but it may take some time to make another one. I want to up the production quality a bit and move from using paradox games map to a more professional looking setup in Adobe After Effects. So it takes more time for me to learn this stuff and draw better looking maps.
@@RomabooRamblings no problem that's awesome that you want to give us fans the best quality possible we really appreciate that and I don't mind the wait because I know you always give us awesome stuff and thanks for replying to me:)
Plebian Majority - "The empire couldn't have possibly won in 1453." The Chad Patrician Romaboo Ramblings - "Wrong" *sips wine* "Now allow me to elaborate while you hold this for me"
I don't think East Rome was doomed up until 1454, because of the revolt in the Morea. If the despotate had been ruled well it could have continued on and eventually recover.
So let me get this straight... Right now, we are subscribed to Romaboo Ramblings. In a few years, the Sack of UA-cam will result in rebranding and it'll be Eastern Romaboo Ramblings. Some people won't like the new content and say it's actually Byzaboo Ramblings, while saying another channel called Holy Romaboo Ramblings is the better one. Sounds right to me.
I notice that Byzantines Emperor don’t like killing their relatives, they blind them or castrate them, but rarely kill. I wonder if it’s just their culture against kinslaying or what.
@@jaif7327 I can understand later Byzantine, but Earlier and Middle Byzantine begs a lot of question. Like the Sister Empress from the Makedon dynasty just blinded their opponents or cloistered them instead of outright killing / executing them for treason.
I can just imagine how much history would be different if Constantinople had survived as a city state, nominally independent but in reality it'd be little more than a token to be traded between whichever countries would be vying for recognition as the regional hegemon. A vassal to whoever is in the dominant position at any given time, the city might endeavour to leverage their history and prestige to become an object over which other nations make war, but not one against which the wars themselves are fought.
I am greek and i don't know if Constantinople would had survived if we had won the Ottomans. Who tell me that nobody else wouldn't had came here to try take the istanbul?
Imo, Venice is more to blame for fall then any other nation state (outside of the ottomans). The single person most responsible in this time period was orban and the fact that he wasn’t executed before he left for the Ottoman Empire.
The Romans were too good Christians for their own good. They should have killed Orban, or at least forced him to work for them in pain of death or torture.
Executing businessmen that come to your lands to offer you a deal cause you can't pay is not a good way to foster trust in diplomacy with anyone really. Who is gonna come to the Eastern Roman court to offer them an alliance if the Emperor can demand you accept his terms or die on the spot.
After the fall of Constantinople, Byzantine nobles tried for 100 years to organize another crusade and convince the Pope and the Francs to retake the city. Free Greeks in Mani and Souli and other regions also never stopped fighitng the ottomans for 400 years. The ottomans even fled the city out of fear in the lates 1400s but for a series of reasons that had to do with the lack of unity in the west, the attack never materialized. The venetians were actively fighting against these efforts as they were keen in conquering small Greek lands from the Ottomans and the Knights of Rodos were also not going to die with the Greeks. In the end it meant their own expulsion to Malta. It was a time when the decision making power in Europe was being trasnferred from "old" peoples, Greeks and Romans (South Italians) to the newer, less developed yet upcoming ones, Francs, Germans and Lombards. These peoples didnt feel thay they had a direct lineage to the Greeks or old ROmans of Italy. The pope's power had faded also. That's why we still say in Greece that we are brotherless nation as no other nation sees us like brothers yet every western nation feels they are somehow indebted to the Greek ideas
1. Buid boats and conquer epirus,but keep them as a vassal for the boats 2. Ally Albania for their general and the knights of Rhodes for their boats 3. Take loans and buy mercenaries 4. Occupy ottoman land in the balkans and wait for ticking war score to go up
As a Turk, If I had a chance to travel back that time, i would help Greeks to achieve these goals just to see how would Mehmet II react and find a solution. He was so ambitious, genius and cunning that none of these precautions would stop him. Seeing him finding the most extraordinary tactics is just priceless.
He was an overrated pedophile. He had 200,000 men against a few thousand Greeks and Italians and only won because someone let them in. He couldn’t take the city for weeks.
Mehmed considered to retreat after their fleet guarding the south was defeated by the Venetian fleet. If Giustiniani hadn't been wounded, the Romans could've easily won the siege as ottoman morale was already low. What i think would've happened is that mehmed would've gathered more troops and besiege the city again after a few months or a year. Though Constantine's cries for a crusade would've probably been heard by the Pope.
@@Vishnujanadasa108 Yeah, no. I'm a eastern Roman empire fan too. But i think your being a little too extreme. Being outnumbered is usually a thing for sieges. Mehmed was quite nice too. He didn't destroy the entirety of Constantinople, he sttoped his troops from looting the city, and actually respected Constantine XI. Compare to other Ottoman Sultans, he actually deserved the title.
Constantinople could have been saved if the battle of Varna wasn't fumbled so hard (He had far more men he could have raised and charging head first didn't help). Vladislovas III' death really complicated things back in Lithuania and Poland as Casimir IV was too busy dealing with both corrupt Polish nobles and crusaders in the north.
There were more Christian spies helping the Ottomans, than Muslim spies helping the Byzantines. Which was the opposite in Spain during the Reconquista where there were more Muslim spies helping the Spanish Crown than Christian spies helping Muslim Granada. It both cases, people knew where the wind was blowing and acted accordingly.
Matzikert wasn't that destructive it was the fourth crusade , something that did end the empire splitting it into 3 pieces all of whom later wasted time and resources fighting each other and the westerners in order to take the city back ,only one of them managed to do so but it never reunited with the other two
Totally appreciate your video. Congratulations! I feel the Venetians would be very accommodating to the marriage. The only question to that from my understanding is the out of favor perception of Genoa. What would have your scenario caused to Genoa and its man Giovanni Giustiniani Longo to do with Venice being more strategic partners? I am reading a detailed history entitled "Venice, A Maritime Republic" by Frederic Chapin Lane which dives into details of Venice's foundational relationship with New Rome and its capitalization of marine based trade. I hope you pick up more on the dynamics of Venice-Genoa to Byzantium. By the way Venice has much of a Byzantine feel to itself even til this day. So your insight is quite appropriate.
Problem I have with the Venetian marriage alliance theory is that the Venetians would have used it to take Constantinople themselves. They had their eyes on the city for ages, obviously took it in 1204 and saw its strategic position as a massive boost to their trading empire. If they had taken it, they might have kept it, too, as they were a mercantile, not a military power. Bottom line, though is that the fall of Constantinople was inevitable after the battle of Myriokephalon. That stopped the Comnenid reconquest gave the Turks a permanent foothold in Anatolia. Recovery was possible after Manzikert (as Alexius and John Comnenus proved). Not after Myriokephalon
Feels like ceding the city to Venice and moving to Morea permanently would have given the Eastern Romans the best chance of survival. No doubt, the Venetians could not be trusted; they're the ones who had the city sacked. But by that point, the Eastern Roman Empire was on life support, and could no longer be picky with their alliances. Letting the Venetians and Ottomans fight for Constantinople until they both bled white would have been a more reasonable, if horribly unpopular option.
This is a really interesting premise. Would you be interested in exploring other divergent points in Roman history and how they would have been avoided?
Ah yes, we start on 11 november 1444, because we're going to play europa universalis IV as Byzantium... easy peesy. On a more serious note, keep Theodore as Despot of Morea and conquer Epirus and Cephalonia. Don't let Helena marry the KIng of Cyprus. He's not going to help. When the Crusade started, Murad would probably have given up Athens to keep Byzantium out of the war. A better match for Helena would have been Giustiniani. Should have let the Peace of Szeged stand. With the prospect of genoa getting the Morea, Konstantinos should have been able to get the northern Aegean islands of his wife's dowry without having to fight for them with his wife dying. Venice would have then had to negotiate to prevent Giustiniani succeeding to Morea by giving up its Morean territories, Euboea and the Duchy of Naxos and marrying the Doge's daughter to Thomas. The Genoese response would have been to station a strong fleet at Chios. As per your strategy Andronikos if still alive, and Demetrios would have been executed. The Knights Hospitallers would then be invited to establish chapter houses (strong fortifications) on the Balkan frontier with the ottomans. The Genoese would not have wanted Thomas to take over Morea. On Theodoros II's death, Konstantinos would have become ruler of Morea. Since 1444, he and Giustiniani would have built and trained the largest army and navy Morea could afford. On Ioannes' death, Konstantinos would become Autokrator, unifying the Roman Remnant. He'd appoint Thomas as Governor of Morea. There'd be the smooth accession of 2nd in commands in Morea as the commanders move to the City to train forces there. The accession of the new Autokrator would make for interesting times. Will he support the Union or be anti-union? The Venetians and Genoese in the City could be 'compromised' out, with the Venetian ships handed over to the Byzantine fleet based at the City. Konstantinos has an Ottoman Pretender. That shapes an Anatolian strategy to place him as Sultan of a much reduced western Ottoman sultanate with all the Anatolian beyliks released and gain an alliance of the Turkic states to do that. Konstantinos could ally with Serbia, Trebizond and Georgia. That should appease the Orthodox faction. He could seek out Bulgarians who would rise in revolt His third string is to keep the Union and parlay doing that into money and troops - 5000 Genoese crossbowmen and a 5000 strong Venetian mercenary company. There would be a plan to fill out a Byzantine army that would duplicate both formations. On the death of Murad, the Pretender is proclaimed Sultan and this time there would be no pre-emptive ottoman strike on Karaman. The Hospitallers, Venetian and Genoese fleets would close the strait. To protect trade, of course. Since Mehmed established his castle on Byzantine territory that would trigger the Crusade. That should finish off Ottoman Europe.
Another way would be for the 4th crusade to not happen (and the Komnenoi decline) as that would prevent the weakening of Anatolia. Thus Sinope, Antalaya, Caria and Bulgaria wouldn’t fall. Thrace wouldn’t be annihilated by Kalyon, and Serbia wouldn’t rise. Or another one is the Palialagos take Orhan and Osman seriously. Thus not allowing Inegol and other key forts not to fall.
There was no hope for the Roman Empire. It was corrupted to the core. No matter what you did, you couldn't save it. They were their own worst enemy, just like any other empire in the end. The Ottomans actually weren't afraid of the Roman Empire surviving. They were more afraid that an Italian state could get the city. At the time, İtalian states were much more potent enemies. Much more driven and organized. It could be big trouble for the ottoman. So they have to act fast. Romans were lucky the city should have fallen nearly 50 years ago. But Timur came. Every time an opportunity came their way, they always wasted it.
Western Christianity had previous issue with the Eastern form of Christianity and let what happened just happen... Had Europa rose up and sent a large coalition Army, History would have been far different in the Byzantine capital of Constantinople. But this is well known. Most likely the Coalition Army would have defeated the Ottomans and sacked Constantinople. So it's unlikely the Byzantines would have retained much power at all.
Losing Constantinople was one of the worst events for Western Civilization and the worse was it was OUR OWN fault. Furthermore after WWI we had the chance to keep but sadly we give it away.
True. After world war 1 the British held constantinople. Greece campaigned in Minor Asia but it was impossible to win the Turks. The Greeks asked the British to allow them take constantinople but they declined. If they had accepted the Turkis would be obliged to compromise. However Greece would then hold the straits and two shores of the aegean sea. No great power wanted a state to control both shores of the aegean. Moreover the Greeks would have a hard time holding the Asian coast of the straits. This is why the British returned constantinople and eastern Thrace to the Turks. The latter wasn't not necessary. But this arrangement better served their interests.
@@kostasloukopoulos78Ataturk would have just taken the city. Most western power were too busy controlling new colonies or trying to stop the soviet advance to eastern Europe to help greece. Turkey was gonna get the city
@@kostasloukopoulos78 So stay the british fleet there for every year? British had other places to send there fleet. British at the time had other places to fight or guard there interest. To the british greek or turk they needed anyone to guard against communism. British was also almost bankrupt and tired.
Never realized how long the Romans lasted. If they held out just a few more decades they would have seen the Ottomans start to decline with their loss of Iberia and the new ships that ushered in the New World cutting off their income
"The last emperor's conduct during the siege was beyond criticism" Morally yes. But before the siege a lot of nobles took their riches and left. Constantine did not stop them or confiscate their riches. Granted this might have cause unwanted chaos and civil strife and pushed some citizens to surrendering to Mehmet.
I mean historically at that point it was just rats fleeing the sinking ship. He stood his ground and likely died fighting the Turks with his men. Overall, I'd contend he died like a true Roman, fighting on his feet even against certain death for God and the Roman Empire.
@@SDArgo_FoC The nobles had an obligation to defend the city like everyone else. Letting them abandon it like that deprived the defenders of extra soldiers (likely well equiped) and funds.
The main reason for the fall are Venetian and Genoese colonies that, like the parasite, sucked out all the wealth from the Byzantine empire for 250 years. They could survive 1204, but not these merchants' greed.
Basically it almost was. For a brief time, Constantine Paleologos was a Despot of Morea controlled almost all the Morea (except the Venetian holds in Argolis and Messenia), had vassalized the Duchy of Athens (which is Attica and Boeotia) and had conquered Western Boeotia, Sperchios and Southern Thessaly, as far as Lamia. With the exception of Aetolia and Akarnania, which at the time belonged to a weakened and latinized Despotate of Epirus, these lands compose of the initially continental territory of the First Greek Republic in 1830 AD. And of course the Roman Greeks could have used that base as a stepping point to reconquer Greece, after a successful defence of the 1453 AD Siege of New Rome. All they need to do at first is simply retake Thessaly and Epirus when the Ottoman Turks face some war elsewhere, and basically all of the Greek Peninsula is now once more in Roman hands.
*boots up EU4*
Might i suggest modding it with Victorum Universalis?
Based awnser no need to watch this video any longer
@Alexandru B ahh, at that point we can use voltaire's nightmare
Opens console cause I’m ass at EU4 could do it in HOI4 though
Thinking about it nah this stragy could only work in the ck3 mod
Honestly the Romans had a good run. I was very surprised when I first learned they existed all the way to 1453, considering Rome was founded over 2200 years prior.
Rome was founded almost 2800 years ago
@@lutskinu14912200 years prior to 1453
The only reason it fell was because of the crusaders, Mehmed would be dead else
@@warrioremperor6320real
@@ozgurd5920ottomans are NOT romans lol
The EU4 references in this video are more inevitable than the fall of Constantinople itself.
They could’ve easily won in 1453 if they took burgher loans fr
@@kenos911 the byzantines would’ve won if they had no cb’d byzantium
@@hithere640 Rule number 1 of playing in Europe. 11th December 1444 = no cb vassalise Byzantium. I see no reason Byzantium should be exempt from this rule.
@@kenos911 they did actually in real life. But that wasn't enough to save them
@@kenos911Bros should have blockaded the Ottos with Rhodes's help
The biggest issue is just how competent and determined Mehmed II was. I don't think he would have ever allowed Constantinople to remain unconquered.
True
It feels the longer constantinople existed the shorter its life span gets
It's r
Already amazing it managed to stand for so long
Him not allowing something to happen and being able to change it in in his favor are 2 different beasts.
There is no inevitability in history.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard Yeah but him being alive pretty much meant Constantinople falling. He revolutionized war in Europe just to be able to take Constantinople.
He wouldn't have even thought about that if it wasn't due to how dangerous and annoying they are.
Very simple. Before Mohammad and time before that. Make an alliance with them, pay money and be a loyal frind as parenters as a client stilight puppet state with an autonomous status. Don't do problems and don't b annoying. Mind your own business. Distant yourself from rest of Europe and other Christian powers. Don't intervene in Ottoman affairs. Be friendly and a support to the ottomans. Then it would have stayed up to WW1 or even today.
@@DarthFhenix55Was he ever outsmarted before? Or did the Turks just pull a nat 20 out of nowhere
Demetrios Palaiologos sort of reminds me of Andronikos I Komnenos, always causing trouble for his more competent family, jumping from one foreign court to another, but escapes responsibility multiple times because he "very sincerely apologized". Thankfully Demetrios never became the Emperor, or Constantinople would have fallen just like Rome in 476, "with a whimper".
yes, lol
I guess in case of Demetrios there is the issue of Ottoman backing. Andronikos is just: "... conspired to murder the emperor, but was caught. He realised the error of his ways, fell on the knees before Manuel and begged for forgiveness. Manuel spared his life and made him a governor. Two years later Andronikos rose in rebellion against Manuel..."
Christian Mercy doesn't work well with utter snakes.
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 the problem isn't Christian mercy but a false pacifistic understanding of the scripture or in Manuel's case, gullibility.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard The worst thing is let a rebellious men governorship, he may got mercy to not be killed but to get ownership of a region? That's even more than a blunder move. If I was Manuel I would at least lock him at home and do the dishes rather than let him do whatever he what.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard
The Medieval Roman's Christian Mercy should have been alike that of Basil II. He was merciful, but only a couple of times; if you repeated your misdeeds, you would be blinded, and sent to a monastery or a prison cell to beg for God's mercy, since the Roman Emperor's has expired.
He's only mentioned briefly, but I want to underscore just how much of a chad Giovanni Giustiniani was. This is a guy who spoke, at least well enough to command people in, like a half dozen different languages, possibly with mercs from as far away as Scotland. He was considered one of the foremost experts on defensive sieges, and it was he who was left in charge of keeping the rag-tag groups of foreigners and different interests in Constantinople stitched together and working well - which he did, training regular-ass people in the use of modern weaponry with what little time he had. Man genuinely pulled off the 'You must be swift as a coursing river!" thing but like, for real, since the detachment of people he led held out basically until the end. He'd learned from prior sieges and was adept at employing all kinds of incredibly effective unorthodox defences that weren't common at the time, and even mounted counter-attacks on the Ottomans. You could not have asked for a better man to be behind the walls, he'd have made everyone from Agrippa to Aetius, Belisarius to Maurice, proud.
Some writers claim that he was a coward but a coward doesn't hold as fast and fight as hard as Giovanni did, I will die on that hill. Though if I do it won't be holding the position as effectively as Giovanni would've.
People talk about Constantine's heroism, but everyone forgets Giovanni; just as, if not more, of a badass than Constantine was.
Giustiniani was no coward. He only left the battlefield when he was unable to carry on. From what I have read a bullet pierced his fighting hand and then exited it, striking his chest. He could not fight any longer.
I don't think he is underrated we remember him in modern day Greece as one of the only heroes of the siege (Kinda hard for a whole country and especially Greece to rememeber a foreigner as a hero) . The emperor is just more famous because he was an emperor at least in name and therefore it would have been much easier for him to turn tail and run which he didn't.
@@faniskou Greeks and Italians have become bros too late! 😕
Giustiniani was by far a great and heroic figure. I’m right there with you defending his character
Absolute mad lad, I respect him
If we're starting at 1444, we all know what the Byzantines should have done. Start building galleys everywhere, delete the fort in Morea, attack Epyrus and vassalise them, attacked the Ottomans, Island trap their armies and win.
Oh no! As soon as I unpaused, I see that you made the exact same joke...
Yes, exactly, because the Byzantine emperor was holding his ipad and playing a computer game. :))
Constantine didn't take care of Demetrios because he didn't want the "Kinslayer" trait...
He didn't have a Pope to help him get rid of it for extra piety 😅
The biggest things that broke Rome:
The 3rd Century Crisis
Adrianople
The Huns
The Germans
The Plague of Justinian
The loss of Egypt (mostly happened because of the plague)
The battle of Manzikirt (lead to the loss of Anatolia)
The sack of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade
Remove any one of these and Rome's chance increaes drastically, I think.
Anatolia was already lost to the Arabs, all Turks had to do is to steamroll the enemy. Mountainous Anatolia is perfect location to defend against horse archers in defensive situations if you implement mounted infantry tactics like Timur did. But Arabs did the main damage by conquering almost all of anatolia and dealing with local troops with their light infantry and light cavalry, which are perfect for skirmishes in uneven terrain such as in Anatolia.
Then again, I would still argue that Bulgars, Slavs and most importantly Crusaders did the most damage. You could reconquer Anatolia with naval supremacy and by "slicing" the territories like Union did in US Civil War. But you have to secure the Balkans first.
And you cannot easily reconquer Balkan peninsula.
Tldr: Too little too late.
And if you read about the Turkish account of Manzikert, you will see that All turks did to divide and trap the separate Roman armies and scouts. The victory was not happened in the location near Manzikert, it happened all in the Eastern anatolia with strategy and logistics. So the problem in Roman army was deeper than a simple battle, or mistakes of a single general: It was a mistake of them not securing the inner anatolia and establishing supply routs. You cannot act aggressively in Eastern Anatolia, you have to use Flavian Tactics instead of attempting to one hit the Turkish army, and motivate the locals to defend the land and support your cause.
Which also means that even if you somehow defeat the Turks, either they will retreat and invade with another army, or another power will march into Anatolia, because you did not secured anatolia first.
Also both accounts mention that Greek and Muslim raiders were attacking each others settlements, and warbands beyond the frontier making small war deep in the Byzantine lands.
And Turkish accounts mention that Alp Arslan raised his army to not conquer Rome, but to move east and dealing with the Egyptians in the support of Khalif. Sending a large army directly to Alp Arslan and spooking him into fighting you was a big mistake.
Not even mention the rise of islam permenantly remove roman presense in levant and north africa is what telling me your source of information
Why did the loss of Egypt happen because of the plague ? Wasn't it because of the arab early conquests (rashidun califate) ?
Of all these, the loss of Anatolia was the most avoidable. The Turks just wanted some tribute payments as they were preparing to march on Egypt. The new Emperor who deposed Romanos IV Diogenes opted to not pay those tribute payments, and the desolation of Anatolia was the result.
Second would be the 4th Crusade Sack. Just don't kill the Byzantine Emperor allied with them. They were literally just waiting to get paid until their client emperor got killed and the new emperor ordered an attack on the Crusader camp, which led to the Crusaders counter-attacking and sacking the city in frustration due to what they felt was a betrayal.
I don't think manzikert made the collapse inevitable, i believe the sack of constantinople by the crusaders was what made the collapse inevitable
@bastiat The situation can be better described as a result of previous unfortunate decisions rather than something fundamentally foolish. It was an unfavorable idea with limited alternatives due to financial constraints and the inadequate military strength of the empire during that period.
Not to mention the Byzies making enemies of Frederick Barbarossa instead of assisting him, the dude roflstomped the Turks and took half of central Anatolia within a month, he would have perhaps given it to the Byzies had they not decided to silently ally themselves with Saladin, perhaps Frederick would have not even died in that river if he went a more lenient, Byzie supported route in that scenario.
@bastiat4855even with all of Greece alone they’d be one of the most powerful kingdoms in Europe
Neither was not as problematic as to cause the down fall of the empire.
@@neutralfellow9736 Frederick in is the guy that died because he went for a swim in full suit of armor ?
I think the best thing about your analysis here is admitting that even if your strategy pays off, the Empire most likely merely survives, rather than revives. Which I think is being honest, no matter how fun it is to successfully retake your cores in EU4. By the time of Varna the sad fact is Constantinople depended on the favour of other powers for any sort of independence, and I think the Demetrios Appeasement plan would have died with Murad II, Mehmed was clearly spoiling for conquest. Even if Varna went off without a hitch, it isn't likely the Empire would directly recover much land. Each of the "ERE doomed after year X" dates are more about the Emperor losing more and more ability to dictate or negotiate with others, instead having to plead. I think by Varna the empire had little ability to pursue any kind of independent foreign agenda. Was that threshold crossed in 1204? 1341? Was an opportunity to reclaim it in 1402 missed? Who knows? And it's unlikely any emperor would be able to over-leverage their resources to somehow build an army that can deter or even beat the Ottomans in open battle, unlike in EU4.
It's kinda why I don't like alt-history and specifically picked the smaller timespan. The amount of "what ifs" rises exponentially the farther back we go.
@@RomabooRamblings Agreed. My biggest problem with "alt-hist" videos/channels, is that they're more "alt-fiction", and doesn't give you any new insights or inferences of the history they're portraying. Your video was phenomenal and taught me so much about this time period that I didn't know, while at the same time entertaining an interesting and reasonable "what if". Brilliant job, mate.
I guess the interesting question, sort of skipped over here, is what if the Crusaders had actually won at Varna, and had inflicted a bad-to-shattering defeat on the Ottomans? Mesembria was not too far south of Varna, so the Crusader army would likely have reached the relative safety of Byzantine territory with ease. What then? Do they proceed to besiege Adrianople? Do they wait and try to get further reinforcements from the West? And if the Crusade does actually come away with a victory (presumably not totally driving the Ottomans out of Europe, but severely checking them and forcing concessions), who gets what?
@@pabodie8219 I recon you will really like Possible History. He gives a lot of context and puts a lot of effort to keep everything plausible (and also isn't a massive nationalist like most channels of this genre).
Worked for Skanderberg
For anyone interested in the matter, Finnish writer Mika Waltari wrote a book called "Johannes Angelos". It is a historical novel telling the fictional story of the titular Johannes, who participates in the defense of Constantinople. Actual historical characters like Giovanni Giustiniani are featured in it too. I recommend it, really makes you wanna die at the walls of such a holy city
The thing about the medieval ERE was that it was given plenty of chances to recover but time and time again a variety of circumstances caused Byzantium to dig its own grave further.
Manzikert ensured that the Empire would no longer be able to retake the Levant and Egypt (at least without the help of the West)
Myriokephalon effectively stopped the reconquests of the Komnenid Dynasty, and of course the sack by the Fourth Crusade undid their progress altogether.
However, when Constantinople was retaken in 1261, the Byzantines still had half of Greece and the western third of Anatolia, and could theoretically be able to restore at least the pre-Fourth Crusade borders. It was the two civil wars of the Palaiologian Dynasty that finally broke Byzantium's back altogether leading us to this situation in 1444
Thank you so much for mentioning Mani!!!
The Toparchy of Maina stood alone, and all that separated it from the Ottoman Empire in 1461 AD was a strip of borderlands in its borders with Messenia and Laconia, given by Krokodeilos Kladas to Venice so that the Venetians would defend Mani. By that time, many fleeing elements of administrators, militarymen and politicians had fled there from New Rome and Mystras/Patras, and Toparchy of Mani was reorganized based on the local administration as the Maniot Republic, based on a Lacedaemonian/Laconian/Maniot Senate in Oitylo. In 1481 AD the Ottoman Turks would invade and the Venetians would just give these borderlands to the Turks, which began a 13 year long Maniot-Turkish War, in which the lowlands of Northern Mani and Middle Mani was captured, but the highlands of Northern Mani and Southern Mani were still free, from which the Maniots managed to eventually push out the Turks, and even wage a counter attack in 1493 AD in Southern Laconia, until their attempt to free Monemvasia was halted and Krokodeilos Kladas was captured and impaled by the Turks. Yet still, even in the 1520s AD we do hear of Kladiotes leading the Maniots and wreaking havoc in Southern Laconia, while the Maniot Republic being still free, sovereign and independent, exactly as it was for the next 3 centuries until it liberated half the Morea in 1821 AD and formed the First Hellenic Republic!!!
Please give me all your book sources on the maniot peninsula post 1453.
@@rfkwouldvebeenaok1008
Here are some English sources. The matterial on this matter is mostly in Greek, French and Italian, barely in English:
• Morritt, John Bacon Sawrey “The Letters of John B. S. Morritt of Rokeby; Descriptive of Journeys in Europe and Asia Minor in the Years 1794-1796”, edited by G. E. Marindin, Published by John Murray, 1914, London, Albemarle Street
• Leake, Martin William. “Travels in the Morea”. Volume 1, Published by John Murray Albemarle Street. 1840. London.
• Gell, William. “Narrative of a Journey in the Morea”. Published by Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, And Brown. 1823. London.
• Gundogdu, Birol. “Ottoman Constructions of the Morea Rebellion, 1770s: A Comprehensive Study of Ottoman Attitudes to the Greek Uprising”. University of Toronto. 2012. Toronto.
• Seifried, Rebecca M. “The Shifting Tides of Empires: Using GIS to Contextualize Population Change Within the Landscape of Seventeenth to Nineteenth-Century Mani, Greece”. Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
• Randolph, Bernard. “The present state of the Morea, called anciently Peloponnesus: together with a description of the city of Athens, islands of Zant, Strafades, and Serigo”. Printed, sold by Will. Notts, Tho. Basset, and Thomas Bennet. 1689. London.
• Galt, John. “Voyages and Travels in the Years 1809, 1810, and 1811: Containing Statistical, Commercial, and Miscellaneous Observations on Gibralter, Sardinia, Sicily, Malta, Serigo, and Turkey”. Published by T. Cadell and W. Davies, Strand. 1812. London.
@@paulmayson3129Damn Bro! You have all the sources! 👍🏻 BRAVO
Everything you share is SPOT ON!!!
A decaying Empire: 1261-1453
By the fourteenth century, the J’3ωι5Η question of Byzantium seemed to be most concerned with Venetian J’3ω5. Venetians had come to reside in the Empire in large numbers by the early 14th century, and treaties between the Empire and Venice granted the Venetians living in the empire, including J’3ω5 of Venetian origin, special privileges, though they also carried certain minor economic prohibitions. Under the aegis of these treaties, Venetian J’3ω5 could buy, sell or rent land anywhere in Constantinople. They also enjoyed a more favorable tax structure than Byzantine citizens, as well as the freedom of movement and settlement anywhere in the Empire.[47]
Further complicating this legal status, some J’3ω5 obtained Venetian citizenship either "by coming from areas subject to the Republic or by purchasing naturalization", thus obtaining the same privileges as Venetian nationals in the Empire.[48] At this time, the Empire was in rapid decay, and could not seriously enforce laws intended to curtail these rights and regain economic control within its borders. Thus, an exception to the general trend of Byzantine history emerged during this century, whereby J’3ω5 were entitled to a broader set of rights than Christians…. “
Listened to this video while playing EU4 as Aragon, trying to vassalize Byz.
Of course things could always be better, but it was very very difficult to find a better way.
He did promise you Lemnos, didn't he
@@RomabooRamblings no :( I need that mod. Had to take the capital peacefully by force.
@@GarfieldRex “Peacefully by force” The most EU4 sentence I’ve ever heard.
Did this in a eu4 mp game as aragon pissed off all the main players. Lol was fun everyone gets mad at me but admit without me the game ain't fun. I know how to get everyone feathers fluffed. But I did kept claiming to be the true heir of Rome and attacked and took Rome, the ottomans and muscovy was mad, France and Tunis mad, english,and Sweden laughing. The Asian league thinking aragon is bad 😂
I actually like how you structured your alternative history scenario. Most alternative history on youtube is very surface level cause they try to cover events over several decades and make the scope too big so we can't really cover over maybe 1/2 factors, here we got an essentially in-depth analysis.
Yeah I like alt-history but I love these very in-depth looks on the tiny details, though these are less common.
*furiously takes notes*
Rome was doomed to fall when Romulus killed Remus because it put the act of fratricide on a mythical pedestal, therefore making betrayal a more accepted and righteous act in the mind of the potential betrayer. This contributes to the internal strife and civil wars that severely weakened Rome. There 😏😏😏
Name fits.
So a city based on trade would've been better? If Reme was actually built it would've just became a Venice on a river far from any real trade. Romulus was wrong but had brains
@@Yannis-ew2ok Romulus and Remus never existed they're based on the creation myth from the proto-Indo-European mythology
the legend of romulus and remus might have been created just cuz of that civil strife and betrayal roman tradition
Remus’ fratricide caused the fall of Rome because the Ottomans figured out the only way to become the New Rome is to copy Old Rome. That’s why the Ottomans made fratricide a state policy allowing stable succession.
Based on your last points, I have suggestions on what the Roman Greeks could have done after a successful defence of the 1453 AD Siege of New Rome, and ensure the Roman State would be in a better place by the early 16th century AD:
* After a spectacular failure to capture the City, Mehmed II's position in power would be very shaky. After all, the 21 year old Sultan began this endeavour to capture New Rome in the first place in order to strenghten his position in the Ottoman Government, especially after the attempted coups he faced due to being doubts that he was a worthy successor of Murad II. It would be the best time for Constantine Paleologos to release Orhan Celebi from his hostage in Constantinople, and support him in an attempt to rally forces against a disgraced Mehmed II. In this way, there might be a Second Ottoman Civil War, like the one that had saved Constantinople 4 decades earlier. Having just failed in his attempt to capture New Rome, Mehmed II would be unable to try again even if he wanted, and the morale would be shattered in face of any idea to try it again in the years right after 1453 AD, perhaps even decades after it.
*The Despotate of Morea indeed could have served as a new base for expansion of the Roman Greeks. The project of Constantine Paleologos was right, his campaigns of reconquest in Southern Greece would have been benefitial in the long run had their fruits been allowed to ripe. The good thing with the Morea is that it is simultaneously both insular and continential, so it could function both as a stepping poing for expansion of sea power and eventually the reconquest of the Aegean and Ionian Sea, while also liberating the Greek Mainland. Yet I feel that the importance of Peloponnese's defence should not be ignored either; with the failure of the Hexamilion Wall, I feel that a victory in the 1453 AD Siege of Constantinople for the Roman Greeks should make them decide to construct the Cannal of Corinth, like Greece did in reality in 1893 AD. All one needs is manpower and shovels to achieve this. In this manner, it would be virtually impossible for a land force from Greece to march into the Morea, and only with a naval landing would it be possible to conquer it. The Romans should be able to march out of it with wooden bridges. Even better if the Romans constructed later a New Corinth around the Cannal, having complete control of it, acting as a capital of a Despotate of Greece.
Don't you have to blast the rock to construct the canal?
@@RomabooRamblings
Perhaps. I could not find if they used explosives back in the 1880s and 1890s. But still, all you need to break rock is sledgehammers and a couple thousand dedicated men using them properly, just like how they did in mines since Antiquity. And it is not as if it was undoable; even as far back as Nero they had been planning it, but usually did not since there were no pressing military or economic benefits. Even as far as the Corinthians in the 6th century BC they could have done this - and in fact they did create a cannal that turned the Leucas Peninsula into an Island, Leukada, but they did not do so because the Delphi Oracle would not give her blessing. The Roman Greeks could have used work in the Cannal as a way to avoid taxes, a practice that was not unheard off at the time; the Italians did the same in Greece, though they usually forced it. And after all, it is well known that "a soldier who digs, lives".
In this light, I have been wondering recently whether the Roman Greeks could have modernized the Theodosian Walls against contemporary artillery, by simply protecting the wall's exterior side with a hill-slide of dirt. All they would have needed was manpower, shovels and transporting the dirt. In this manner the cannon balls, no matter how large, whould have simply struck and splattered the soft dirt and not the wall behind it. Nothing too complicated, simply the basics for anti-artillery walls in the 17th century AD. As for the dirt, in the same time it could have been taken from extended constructions for second or third lines of moats in front of the Theodosian Walls, especially useful for the age of long ranged firearms. The Roman Greeks should have been able to deduce all that after a successful defence of the 1453 AD Siege of New Rome, so I think these actions might have been reasonable and useful for New Rome's protection in the second half of the 15th century AD...
New Rome lol
@@jj4l
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rome
Amazing
Thanks for the tips i will make sure to implement it in the next timeline i change.
I tried to save constantinople 54 times(And only 9 timelines worked and only 1 of the timeline's rome managed to be restored, the other 8 perished in the 16th-20th centuries or continued as small and irrelevant)
Becoming relevant again is an even bigger challenge
Of course, that desconsidereted for mi, idiot ottoman descenderunt
Of course, that desconsidereted for mi, idiot ottoman descenderunt
@@RomabooRamblings Indeed, maintaining a delicate power balance in the Balkans was crucial for the survival of the Romans. Striking a balance ensured that no single nation could grow excessively powerful. However, should the Romans aspire to expand their influence, they would inevitably need to engage in a conflict with one of the nations necessary for the balance. Such a confrontation would risk creating a dominant power that could ultimately bring about the demise of the empire.
@@RomabooRamblings The 1 that did succeed though, did managed to recover the balkans,anatolia,levant and italy and had a mediocre run as a colonial power(but not in the americas.)
In the 21st century they were quite high up though as the other colonial powers faded and so did they but they retained the territories i mentioned above.
With a sizeable population of 225 million, 1.1 million active personnel and a gdp of 4.84 trillion.
Gdp per capita=41,664$
Manzikert definitely didn’t help. But the Roman Empire had recovered from disastrous battles before. Good grief if they could survive Canne with Hannibal at the walls! But what has to be looked at that wasn't present in other defeats was gunpowder! Technology had caught up to the days of staying behind great walled defensive structures.
Arguably, the walls could have held up better had the Romans reconfigured them for modern warfare. Of course, this would have required time, money and foresight.
It definitely had not caught up to the point yet and wouldn’t for another 400 years at least
The walls weren't defeated tho they had a gate open that's the reason the city fell. Not because the walls failed. They still stand to this day of course not in its old glory.
Must say, you have a talent for analysing a situation, planning how to create advantages & mitigate disadvantages, and making realistic conclusions. Grateful you're on UA-cam.
I thought that this was a really fantastic video. All to often what-if history stuff is more fantasty than reality and also based on a very poor understanding of either the events or the general circumstances.
This was really well researched and considered and offered very realistic alternatives.
I would mention that Constantine XI made a mistep against the Venetians by introducing a wine and hides tax on the Venetians to raise more money. It is believed that Constantine's betrothal to the Venetian Doge was considered but not very far advanced. There is no record of it in any source other than Sphrantzes but the match probably was considered. I believe COnstantine's diplomatic gambit with Mehmed II comes from Doukas 34.2, though not an eyewitness source they, he did have access to Turkish sources so it may reflect the official Turkish casus belli for the war. Also Constantine may have gambled that Mehmed would have accepted since he was fighting Karaman at the time. It was ill-timed but I would not discount it not absolve Constantine from making such a mistake. Just some helpful notes.
Thanks for the insight
🦅ERH
What up Daniel. Great seeing you here.
Either that or the Empire of Trebizond, technically the last remnant of the Roman Empire, which only fell in 1461 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I guess the principality of Theodoro would've been the last if we include Trebizond.
I got yout Georgian request, btw. I'll keep it in mind and in the notes.
@@RomabooRamblings 1. Yeah, 2nd last then.
2. Thank you so much! If you do make the video, I guarantee that you'll get a minimum of 50K views from us alone, as the youth here love their history, especially concerning Rome
Dude, its like less than 10 years, and both conquered by the same guy. There wasn't much of a challenge and it is not like Mehmet is going to conquer other territories first so historians could pinpoint the specific year.
If you include some random Ionian islands it lasted until almost 1500
Not having endless civil war every goddamn day. Even when Roman become Ottoman tributary they still have the time for civil war(by using Ottoman patron this time to win the civil war)
A realistic divergent point could be either John Komnenos not dying in a hunting accident and/or Manuel Komnenos' child dying in childbirth meaning he has to keep Bela as his heir. I am still not too well versed in the 12th century but I'd imagine this allows more victories and Emperor Bela as Alexios II would be more beneficial than the timeline we live in.
No, the Roman leader will kill him because the Romans do not change
I’m still impressed that the Romans and their continuations essentially took what would shatter most nations and survive this long and it was due to a relentless Mehmed II who had the skill and power to actually take out Constantinople which can be seen as the final nail for the Byzantines being able to bounce back.
George Sphranzes mentions several illness outbreaks in the Ottoman camp a week before the City fell. Alongside with reinforcements from Hungary and Venice, as you are already suggesting, Mehmet's armies could face total obliteration on the field, possibly even the Sultan's death.
Παλαιολόγος, what a badass Emperor he was, fought until the end and never surrendered.
Even today a few people like me for example say that our Emperor never surrendered nor made a treaty
and don't care what the rest of the world says and thinks but we will take Constantinople back, and not only Constantinople.
Constantinople is truly Roman and also Anatolia and Armenia. Konstantinos died for Constantinople. It's sad and frustrating to forget of the great Roman city. We can't just forget about it.
It seems like the world just wants to forget about it, but I still don't as it is a huge insult to see Turkish names on Roman soil. Only someone brave and great will restore the Roman state.
@@dannyvader007 Even those turkish names are made from Greek names, this is how pathetic the turks are, try and find a single city the turks build, there is none.
It’s all interest my friend the West supports turkey out of interest, they turn a blind eye on all the crimes turkey committed all the genocides they killed millions of people, but wait and see, once they stop supporting them it will be turkeys end.
And this end will come soon have patience and you will see!
Not surprised that the video of Balkans history attracts some Balkan nationalists... Next thing you know, Austria is rightful German clay, Akhand Bharat should be a thing, and Ukraine is historic Russian land.
@@the90thhunter92 Its funny to see that some nationalist kids cannot accept the past.They are trying to live in their delusional dreams 😂😂
@@exspresstelekom6699 this comment section is a shithole and is precisely the reason why people make fun of Byzaboos.
Σε ευχαριστούμε αξιότιμε βάρβαρε. Οι βοήθειές σου θα ανταμειφθούν όπως αξίζει σε έναν πιστόν σαν εσένα.
Just wondering - are orthodox foreigners less barbarians than others?
Ωχ Χριστέ μου! 😂
@@pc_suffering6941 Barbarian was originally used by ancient Greeks to describe non-Greek speakers
@@clonecommanderrex8542 but Latin Romans also used it ?
@@pc_suffering6941 for roman it's people who do not speak latin
It's difficult to avoid the "ERE's history is one long decline" narrative when it's territory peaked with Justinian in the sixth century and for the next 900 years it just kept losing ground.
Theirs the Makedon dynasty and basil the second who greatly expanded the empires borders theirs the komenoi restoration which went from a few costal ports in Anatolia to controlling half of Anatolia in only a few decades. The Byzantine empire in the stock markets would be like a bunch of rises and falls but most rises of the stock price are 1 cent below the previous on average.
@@johnconnor8206 Laskarid dynasty too
Even with it shrinking territorially from period to period, there's also the fact that it increasingly consolidated itself in terms of government and grew more economically powerful in the long run. I think I remember reading that the Komnenian period may have been the wealthiest Rome had been since the Heraclians.
@@monetizedyay6827
This is wrong, it was Basil II who was the wealthiest Roman Emperor since the Heraclians.
Colours on a map does not determine an Empire's power.
Thank you ! Just seeing and thinking how we could have won makes me happy as grown man.
Brilliant EU4 references! Subscribed! Btw, Demetrios Palailogos sounds totally like Loki, a treacherous slimy brother of Konstantinos who would be the Thor, except all of them defeated by the Ottoman Thanos Mehmed II.
Manzikert wasn’t the deathnail imo. It was the sack of 1204. Or even Michael VIII’s issues. They could’ve reconquered Anatolia imo, maybe not with ease but it was more than doable if just a few things were different.
If it wasn't for the Fourth Crusade I could honestly see Rome surviving roughly in the borders of modern Greece, as well as western Anatolia.
I've always felt that the Battle of Yarmouk was actually the turning point in Byzantine history. Had they won, that might have terminated the Islamic invasions entirely as the entire strength of the Muslim armies was there. With that loss, and the increasing fervor of the Muslim fighters, further encroachment became inevitable. Also, had the West and Byzantium been able to bury the hatchets regarding Catholic vs Orthodox, a united Christendom would have been impossible to penetrate.
I usually enjoy your videos but this was an incredible dissection of the time and decisions, fantastic work
A follow up strategy to your strategy could have been to send the Turkish Pretender after Mehmed’s death (if he died in the siege) in exchange for Gallipoli.
Or to send the pretender to cause instability, and invade Gallipoli with the combined force from Morea and Constantinople, under the Emperor’s leadership.
Thus, the reclamation of Thessaly (as you claim in your strategy) the reclamation of Thrace (the areas surrounding Gallipoli) could have given the Romans even more decades to live for.
They could then have made ottoman invasions of the balkans more difficult or time consuming( they would have to either cross through the Romans or land somewhere else).
I believe that the concessions to Hungary could also be reclaimed when/if Hungary goes into instability or when their monarch dies.
29:14 My man striaght up using Saul Goodman metaphors lmao.
I'm just full of colorful metaphors and brimming with advice
I like this kind of grounded and detailed alternate history. Not as bombastic as some bigger points of divergence but still cool
Why does nobody ever talk about how Byzantium was doing well both economically and militarily, including retaking swathes of Anatolia from the Seljuks, until the 4th crusade in 1204 and never recovered from the Crusaders' sacking
Wow... Constantine XI needs me? Ok... I'll do it. I'm gonna bat for you Constantine! I got your back Constantine!
I’m Constantine’s top guy!
Demetrios is the kind of guy to fight for his principles in the abstract but in reality just rolls with whatever is most convenient at the time.
Really cool take on alternate history here. Appreciate the small scale and the attention to factual analysis here as opposed to the "Constantine XI reconquers Britain and colonizes the moon" wankery.
Wouldn't mind seeing more of these occasionally. Would be cool to devise a similar strategy for the Romans to beat the Arabs during the 7th Century for instance. Even more ballsy if you're able to come up with one after Yarmouk.
Hey man honestly I love if you did more videos like this one it definitely was a thought provoker and honestly a great video.🎉🎉🎉
I was thinking about this kinda vids lately, but it may take some time to make another one. I want to up the production quality a bit and move from using paradox games map to a more professional looking setup in Adobe After Effects. So it takes more time for me to learn this stuff and draw better looking maps.
@@RomabooRamblings no problem that's awesome that you want to give us fans the best quality possible we really appreciate that and I don't mind the wait because I know you always give us awesome stuff and thanks for replying to me:)
Plebian Majority - "The empire couldn't have possibly won in 1453."
The Chad Patrician Romaboo Ramblings - "Wrong" *sips wine* "Now allow me to elaborate while you hold this for me"
Another splendid and captivating video, well done!
I don't think East Rome was doomed up until 1454, because of the revolt in the Morea. If the despotate had been ruled well it could have continued on and eventually recover.
Great video, learnt a lot of new things. Keep up the great work!
So let me get this straight... Right now, we are subscribed to Romaboo Ramblings. In a few years, the Sack of UA-cam will result in rebranding and it'll be Eastern Romaboo Ramblings. Some people won't like the new content and say it's actually Byzaboo Ramblings, while saying another channel called Holy Romaboo Ramblings is the better one.
Sounds right to me.
The Third Romaboo Ramblings channel might have a similar accent
I notice that Byzantines Emperor don’t like killing their relatives, they blind them or castrate them, but rarely kill. I wonder if it’s just their culture against kinslaying or what.
Or that the army commander does not turn against the king and kill him
its very bad to spill royal blood
@@jaif7327 Or military coups, the Romans are adept at this
@@jaif7327 I can understand later Byzantine, but Earlier and Middle Byzantine begs a lot of question. Like the Sister Empress from the Makedon dynasty just blinded their opponents or cloistered them instead of outright killing / executing them for treason.
@@AlexS-oj8qf Didn't Irene of Athens murder her own son or something. But yeah, they definitely did kinslaying a lot less than the pre-split Romans.
After you mentioned upgrading the theodosean walls i couldn't help but imagine it being converted to a zigzag star fort wall 😂
I can just imagine how much history would be different if Constantinople had survived as a city state, nominally independent but in reality it'd be little more than a token to be traded between whichever countries would be vying for recognition as the regional hegemon. A vassal to whoever is in the dominant position at any given time, the city might endeavour to leverage their history and prestige to become an object over which other nations make war, but not one against which the wars themselves are fought.
You should make a video titled "How To Save Constantinople in 2023". Same video, just a slightly different date.
Step 1: Get a TON of money
Step 2: Buy it from Turkey
I am greek and i don't know if Constantinople would had survived if we had won the Ottomans.
Who tell me that nobody else wouldn't had came here to try take the istanbul?
Imo, Venice is more to blame for fall then any other nation state (outside of the ottomans). The single person most responsible in this time period was orban and the fact that he wasn’t executed before he left for the Ottoman Empire.
The Romans were too good Christians for their own good. They should have killed Orban, or at least forced him to work for them in pain of death or torture.
Executing businessmen that come to your lands to offer you a deal cause you can't pay is not a good way to foster trust in diplomacy with anyone really. Who is gonna come to the Eastern Roman court to offer them an alliance if the Emperor can demand you accept his terms or die on the spot.
@@seto_kaiba_ they don't need to know.
After the fall of Constantinople, Byzantine nobles tried for 100 years to organize another crusade and convince the Pope and the Francs to retake the city. Free Greeks in Mani and Souli and other regions also never stopped fighitng the ottomans for 400 years.
The ottomans even fled the city out of fear in the lates 1400s but for a series of reasons that had to do with the lack of unity in the west, the attack never materialized. The venetians were actively fighting against these efforts as they were keen in conquering small Greek lands from the Ottomans and the Knights of Rodos were also not going to die with the Greeks. In the end it meant their own expulsion to Malta.
It was a time when the decision making power in Europe was being trasnferred from "old" peoples, Greeks and Romans (South Italians) to the newer, less developed yet upcoming ones, Francs, Germans and Lombards. These peoples didnt feel thay they had a direct lineage to the Greeks or old ROmans of Italy. The pope's power had faded also. That's why we still say in Greece that we are brotherless nation as no other nation sees us like brothers yet every western nation feels they are somehow indebted to the Greek ideas
Fantastic video idea
Very solid video, thnx for huge work and wish you great luck in the future
(Me, charging up fuel cells for time machine)
**furiously scribbling notes**
1. Buid boats and conquer epirus,but keep them as a vassal for the boats
2. Ally Albania for their general and the knights of Rhodes for their boats
3. Take loans and buy mercenaries
4. Occupy ottoman land in the balkans and wait for ticking war score to go up
As a Turk, If I had a chance to travel back that time, i would help Greeks to achieve these goals just to see how would Mehmet II react and find a solution. He was so ambitious, genius and cunning that none of these precautions would stop him. Seeing him finding the most extraordinary tactics is just priceless.
He was an overrated pedophile. He had 200,000 men against a few thousand Greeks and Italians and only won because someone let them in. He couldn’t take the city for weeks.
I mean, he was called the Great, and rightfully so. But if too many factors work against him, he's ultimately still a man, look at Bayezid.
@@KaiHung-wv3ul who calls him great? It doesn’t matter he was a sick pedophile and no one knows him due to being mediocre
Mehmed considered to retreat after their fleet guarding the south was defeated by the Venetian fleet. If Giustiniani hadn't been wounded, the Romans could've easily won the siege as ottoman morale was already low. What i think would've happened is that mehmed would've gathered more troops and besiege the city again after a few months or a year. Though Constantine's cries for a crusade would've probably been heard by the Pope.
@@Vishnujanadasa108 Yeah, no. I'm a eastern Roman empire fan too. But i think your being a little too extreme. Being outnumbered is usually a thing for sieges. Mehmed was quite nice too. He didn't destroy the entirety of Constantinople, he sttoped his troops from looting the city, and actually respected Constantine XI. Compare to other Ottoman Sultans, he actually deserved the title.
Watching this if i end up traveling back in time. Very Helpful 👍
Thanks. If I ever wake up and I’m in 1453, the Emperor of Rome and the ottomans are at the gates I will use this guide.
I was there yesterday. Pretty cool.
I think this guide might not be to useful since a lot of it had to be done before that, 1453 is super last minute (or year actually)
Girls with a time machine:
- I'm your granddaughter!
- Wow cool!
Boys with a time machine:
I Learned so much new information about these years from your video!
Constantinople could have been saved if the battle of Varna wasn't fumbled so hard (He had far more men he could have raised and charging head first didn't help). Vladislovas III' death really complicated things back in Lithuania and Poland as Casimir IV was too busy dealing with both corrupt Polish nobles and crusaders in the north.
Based Murad II the Great 🌝
There were more Christian spies helping the Ottomans, than Muslim spies helping the Byzantines. Which was the opposite in Spain during the Reconquista where there were more Muslim spies helping the Spanish Crown than Christian spies helping Muslim Granada. It both cases, people knew where the wind was blowing and acted accordingly.
Matzikert wasn't that destructive it was the fourth crusade , something that did end the empire splitting it into 3 pieces all of whom later wasted time and resources fighting each other and the westerners in order to take the city back ,only one of them managed to do so but it never reunited with the other two
cool channel, very interesting and profound vids on subjects I haven't seen in such detail from the other creators in this genre.
Totally appreciate your video. Congratulations! I feel the Venetians would be very accommodating to the marriage. The only question to that from my understanding is the out of favor perception of Genoa. What would have your scenario caused to Genoa and its man Giovanni Giustiniani Longo to do with Venice being more strategic partners? I am reading a detailed history entitled "Venice, A Maritime Republic" by Frederic Chapin Lane which dives into details of Venice's foundational relationship with New Rome and its capitalization of marine based trade. I hope you pick up more on the dynamics of Venice-Genoa to Byzantium. By the way Venice has much of a Byzantine feel to itself even til this day. So your insight is quite appropriate.
I think "I see satan fall like lightning" is a book that indirectly makes the case that Rome was doomed to fail once Remus killed Romulus
"Just play safe we scale" -Constantine the 11th
Great video idea, would enjoy more
If it DOESN'T end with Trajan's borders and with the roman colonization od Mars, then it's not a very realistic timeline imo
Amazing video! Please more like this
Easy, get rid of Justinian's Plague.
Problem I have with the Venetian marriage alliance theory is that the Venetians would have used it to take Constantinople themselves. They had their eyes on the city for ages, obviously took it in 1204 and saw its strategic position as a massive boost to their trading empire. If they had taken it, they might have kept it, too, as they were a mercantile, not a military power. Bottom line, though is that the fall of Constantinople was inevitable after the battle of Myriokephalon. That stopped the Comnenid reconquest gave the Turks a permanent foothold in Anatolia. Recovery was possible after Manzikert (as Alexius and John Comnenus proved). Not after Myriokephalon
Feels like ceding the city to Venice and moving to Morea permanently would have given the Eastern Romans the best chance of survival. No doubt, the Venetians could not be trusted; they're the ones who had the city sacked. But by that point, the Eastern Roman Empire was on life support, and could no longer be picky with their alliances. Letting the Venetians and Ottomans fight for Constantinople until they both bled white would have been a more reasonable, if horribly unpopular option.
Can you make a video about the Theme of Iberia or Lazica? You have at least 3 Georgian viewers here :D
I wish I had the attention span and executive function to study all this history in depth on my own 😢 guess I'll wait until I go back to school
This is a really interesting premise. Would you be interested in exploring other divergent points in Roman history and how they would have been avoided?
If I can isolate a reasonable timespan, like with this one
@@RomabooRamblings Aye, makes sense
@@RomabooRamblings maybe something interesting could be how rome could've prevented itself from becoming an empire or continued to stay as a republic.
I agree we only live in this time and right now people say we're failing however I hold optimism and I think things Will be better
Ah yes, we start on 11 november 1444, because we're going to play europa universalis IV as Byzantium... easy peesy. On a more serious note, keep Theodore as Despot of Morea and conquer Epirus and Cephalonia. Don't let Helena marry the KIng of Cyprus. He's not going to help. When the Crusade started, Murad would probably have given up Athens to keep Byzantium out of the war. A better match for Helena would have been Giustiniani. Should have let the Peace of Szeged stand. With the prospect of genoa getting the Morea, Konstantinos should have been able to get the northern Aegean islands of his wife's dowry without having to fight for them with his wife dying. Venice would have then had to negotiate to prevent Giustiniani succeeding to Morea by giving up its Morean territories, Euboea and the Duchy of Naxos and marrying the Doge's daughter to Thomas. The Genoese response would have been to station a strong fleet at Chios.
As per your strategy Andronikos if still alive, and Demetrios would have been executed. The Knights Hospitallers would then be invited to establish chapter houses (strong fortifications) on the Balkan frontier with the ottomans. The Genoese would not have wanted Thomas to take over Morea. On Theodoros II's death, Konstantinos would have become ruler of Morea. Since 1444, he and Giustiniani would have built and trained the largest army and navy Morea could afford.
On Ioannes' death, Konstantinos would become Autokrator, unifying the Roman Remnant. He'd appoint Thomas as Governor of Morea. There'd be the smooth accession of 2nd in commands in Morea as the commanders move to the City to train forces there. The accession of the new Autokrator would make for interesting times. Will he support the Union or be anti-union? The Venetians and Genoese in the City could be 'compromised' out, with the Venetian ships handed over to the Byzantine fleet based at the City.
Konstantinos has an Ottoman Pretender. That shapes an Anatolian strategy to place him as Sultan of a much reduced western Ottoman sultanate with all the Anatolian beyliks released and gain an alliance of the Turkic states to do that.
Konstantinos could ally with Serbia, Trebizond and Georgia. That should appease the Orthodox faction. He could seek out Bulgarians who would rise in revolt
His third string is to keep the Union and parlay doing that into money and troops - 5000 Genoese crossbowmen and a 5000 strong Venetian mercenary company. There would be a plan to fill out a Byzantine army that would duplicate both formations.
On the death of Murad, the Pretender is proclaimed Sultan and this time there would be no pre-emptive ottoman strike on Karaman. The Hospitallers, Venetian and Genoese fleets would close the strait. To protect trade, of course. Since Mehmed established his castle on Byzantine territory that would trigger the Crusade. That should finish off Ottoman Europe.
What an amazing video!
Another way would be for the 4th crusade to not happen (and the Komnenoi decline) as that would prevent the weakening of Anatolia. Thus Sinope, Antalaya, Caria and Bulgaria wouldn’t fall. Thrace wouldn’t be annihilated by Kalyon, and Serbia wouldn’t rise. Or another one is the Palialagos take Orhan and Osman seriously. Thus not allowing Inegol and other key forts not to fall.
There was no hope for the Roman Empire. It was corrupted to the core. No matter what you did, you couldn't save it.
They were their own worst enemy, just like any other empire in the end.
The Ottomans actually weren't afraid of the Roman Empire surviving. They were more afraid that an Italian state could get the city. At the time, İtalian states were much more potent enemies. Much more driven and organized. It could be big trouble for the ottoman. So they have to act fast. Romans were lucky the city should have fallen nearly 50 years ago. But Timur came. Every time an opportunity came their way, they always wasted it.
So you're telling me the Greeks had a Ricimer of their own?
This is a video we all didn't ask for but all needed
Write that down!
While we study history we might think that the outcomes were inevitable, but people who actually lived those events thought everything but that.
To save 1453 you must travel back to 1204.
Not even. The most you'd do is preserve the weakening Angeloi Dynasty which was already a patsy of Saladin. Would that really change anything?
no, just go back to the byzantine civil war
The latin empire was the easts last hope. The Greeks died when they lost their blue eyes and blonde hair.
@@GAMER123GAMING
Wdym?
@@GAMER123GAMING weirdo
Constantinople suffered the fate of Samaria, Carthago, and ultimately Königsberg, it hurts more than the defeat itself.
How March pain you have caused me posting this video I can't tell you
No, it's June.
So there is a TV series about the rise of ottomans and fall of constantinople?
- disappears for 12 x 45 min -
Western Christianity had previous issue with the Eastern form of Christianity and let what happened just happen... Had Europa rose up and sent a large coalition Army, History would have been far different in the Byzantine capital of Constantinople. But this is well known. Most likely the Coalition Army would have defeated the Ottomans and sacked Constantinople.
So it's unlikely the Byzantines would have retained much power at all.
High-quality history. Great work-
Losing Constantinople was one of the worst events for Western Civilization and the worse was it was OUR OWN fault.
Furthermore after WWI we had the chance to keep but sadly we give it away.
True. After world war 1 the British held constantinople. Greece campaigned in Minor Asia but it was impossible to win the Turks. The Greeks asked the British to allow them take constantinople but they declined. If they had accepted the Turkis would be obliged to compromise. However Greece would then hold the straits and two shores of the aegean sea. No great power wanted a state to control both shores of the aegean. Moreover the Greeks would have a hard time holding the Asian coast of the straits. This is why the British returned constantinople and eastern Thrace to the Turks. The latter wasn't not necessary. But this arrangement better served their interests.
@@kostasloukopoulos78
If the west didn't secularize in the 19th century, islam would be only a shadow of what it is right now
@@kostasloukopoulos78Ataturk would have just taken the city. Most western power were too busy controlling new colonies or trying to stop the soviet advance to eastern Europe to help greece. Turkey was gonna get the city
@@schneejacques3502 kemal had no fleet and he would be easily limited to Asia minor if the British so wished.
@@kostasloukopoulos78 So stay the british fleet there for every year? British had other places to send there fleet. British at the time had other places to fight or guard there interest. To the british greek or turk they needed anyone to guard against communism. British was also almost bankrupt and tired.
Never realized how long the Romans lasted. If they held out just a few more decades they would have seen the Ottomans start to decline with their loss of Iberia and the new ships that ushered in the New World cutting off their income
"The last emperor's conduct during the siege was beyond criticism"
Morally yes. But before the siege a lot of nobles took their riches and left. Constantine did not stop them or confiscate their riches. Granted this might have cause unwanted chaos and civil strife and pushed some citizens to surrendering to Mehmet.
What’s wrong with letting bring their stuff away? They don’t have any moral obligation to give them to the ottomans…
I would've seized every last luxury good to pay for soldiers.
I mean historically at that point it was just rats fleeing the sinking ship. He stood his ground and likely died fighting the Turks with his men. Overall, I'd contend he died like a true Roman, fighting on his feet even against certain death for God and the Roman Empire.
@@SDArgo_FoC The nobles had an obligation to defend the city like everyone else. Letting them abandon it like that deprived the defenders of extra soldiers (likely well equiped) and funds.
@@nikolaosboukouvalas449FACTS!!!!
The main reason for the fall are Venetian and Genoese colonies that, like the parasite, sucked out all the wealth from the Byzantine empire for 250 years. They could survive 1204, but not these merchants' greed.
I could see Morea coming out of this alternate timeline as a precursor to modern Greece.
Basically it almost was. For a brief time, Constantine Paleologos was a Despot of Morea controlled almost all the Morea (except the Venetian holds in Argolis and Messenia), had vassalized the Duchy of Athens (which is Attica and Boeotia) and had conquered Western Boeotia, Sperchios and Southern Thessaly, as far as Lamia. With the exception of Aetolia and Akarnania, which at the time belonged to a weakened and latinized Despotate of Epirus, these lands compose of the initially continental territory of the First Greek Republic in 1830 AD. And of course the Roman Greeks could have used that base as a stepping point to reconquer Greece, after a successful defence of the 1453 AD Siege of New Rome. All they need to do at first is simply retake Thessaly and Epirus when the Ottoman Turks face some war elsewhere, and basically all of the Greek Peninsula is now once more in Roman hands.
Stage 6: Preventive Theory crafting