A few corrections (and clarifications): Egypt is still lost, but it isn't the Muslim/Arab Egypt we know today. It's a mix of Coptic Egyptian and Muslim-Arab culture, which I will make a video on in the future. Also, The "Smaller muslim areas" lost at 5:17 aren't Muslim. It's a now independent Christian Assyrian nation, which I will also take a look at in the future. Also at some point in the Video I said Baltic instead of Balkan lol
What would be the electoral system specifically would it be a somewhat epistocratic republican system almost like the old Roman republic , representative democracy, and do you have anything else in mind
@@AlefeLucas Constantinople was named "New Rome" and was made the new capital of the Empire. It was still very much Roman in government, the codes of law were the same and many elements even brought in during Augustus's time were still in the Empire. Sure, they lost their original city but the government is what mattered. Those who are a citizen of the government were Roman. Though I will admit, it is much easier to look at Byzantium as more of a successor state rather than the continuation of Rome because of how different it was than the ancient period of the Empire.
@@romainvicta8817 I agree with all you said. Btw ur last part about it being so different yes it was however we talk about an empire stretching for 1.5 millennials... the only logical and natural thing is to expect it to be different. We even talk about two entirely different epochs of history when talking about this Empires history and that is Antiquity and Medieval era. And I find it so interesting that some people use the argument that East Rome having so much of a Hellenic Character therefore justifying East Rome to not be Roman when Rome always was Greek-Latin hence the world wide term the “Graeco-Roman World” it only shows how little these people know about Roman history.
True, I also considered having it colonize all of Iraq and Syria and keeping Egypt. Then maybe decolonizing a lot later. But I went with the civil war and unstable Rome in the age of revolutions instead. But yeah I see where you're coming from. I was a little unsure of which route to go with. I just knew I wanted a Rome/Byzantium centered around what used to be the Greek-speaking core of the empire in our world, by the end of it. But if you want to see a thick Rome, I will probably make a video on what if Rome never split and the West also survived at some point ;)
@@scvboy1 Not in just past 50, friend. Basically post 1200 AD Arabs were ruled by either Turks or Persianised Turks (or even Albanians in the case of Egypt). Or westerners.
Syria would not have been a Muslim Dominate country in this timeline because back around 1071 they had a sizeable Christian population and if they were recaptured by the Empire shortly after the battle of manzikert like you say in this timeline then the vast majority of Syria and Assyria would be heavily christianized and they'd see no reason to to break away from the empire
A bit different kind of Iran. More Turkish. But yes if something stayed the same during the entire Roman history all the way to the Arab invasion it was being in war with Iran.
I'm honestly not sure ww2 would play out the same. After all Italy was only expansionist because it sought to reform the roman empire but if the empire never fell they'd have no basis to reclaim the empire etc. Most likely the fascist movement would have been in the Roman Republic and led to them joining the Axis rather than the allies. Just my take on it.
I thought of that too. ERE would likely have replaced Italy in our timeline wanting to rebuild the Empire. They might even annex Italy itself and Egypt back. They’d eventually lose likely do to Soviet Invasion from the East and that might make them into a communist puppet state for the next 40 years though.
For me, I liked this alternate history of the E. Roman Empire. I feel that you got a lot of your cues from the actual history that ensued with the Ottoman Empire -- i.e., successes in the 15th century, Armenia wanting independence, Macedonian/Hungarian neighbors vying for a land power grab, possible war with imperial Russia because of Crimea, and 19th century parliamentary reforms to hold the emperor in check. The notion of an emperor would have ended in the 19th-20th century. Japan is the only country with an emperor, even that he/she is a symbolic figurehead. I don't think the Americas would have been discovered for another 50-100 years, maybe even more, as the Italian/Portuguese merchants would have not had any reason to find new trading routes. Western European technological/artistic/political/theocratic advancements CAME forth arguably due to the fall of the E. Roman Empire; it made the West get their act together with finding new trading routes, studying new concepts of art, and exploring old ways of governing, and questioning religion.
Without muslims in constantinople I think the rivalry between Catholics and orthodoxs would be bigger, the massacre of the Latins in 1182 proves that the relationship between the two faiths could be very negative: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins That's why I think its possible that the iberian kingdoms decide to find new routes anyways.
@@ffls775 well yeah,but they said that 50-100 years later,because byzantine still a Christian,and Portugal, Castille and other european trade route would still be from constantinople to Venice tho
well 1 small bit of critique, the entire renaissance came forth out of the fall of constantinople, where a lot of scholars left with books and texts from antiquity, which got the renaissance going, also the portuguese went to look for new trade routes because the muslim turks didn't allow them to trade, but if the byzantines did allow them to trade they would've had no reason to look for a new expensive and even dangerous trading route, halting most of european over seas expansion. not a few things would change, a ton would change.
@@ffls775 well, tbf it's unlikely the byzantine economy was partly based around that trade, so they wouldn't refuse the catholic merchants access to the markets, which the ottomans did and thus the iberians went looking for a new trade route.
Why did Rome side with the Allies in WW1? They stole their land (which you said was mostly Christian) in the Levant. Seems like joining the Central Powers would be smarter because 1. They were winning until the USA joined 2. They had more to gain from it (like Crimea, Levant, maybe even Egypt or the Balkans if they got very ambitious). Overall great video, i just had questions about that.
main reason would most likely be because rome had literally just won a civil war to overthrow a monarchy, if they sided with monarchs (germany, austria). It would quite literally go against their fundamental reason for even existing. In addition to this, they would also have territorial ambitions too (although it seems in this timeline they got nothing). As austria was on their borders. Lastly, the british and french yoinking the levant was actually favorable to romes interests in the future as they now have a powerful buffer against the saud's of arabia who were quickly expanding to take over the arabian peninsula
One could make a dark future version from this, where the democrats lose the civil war to the imperialists, later leading to an german-byzantine axis instead of italy. Rome annexes italy while germany invaded poland. This could lead to the soviet union collapsing under a combined attack, leaving only england unoccupied in europe. After unsuccessfull air strikes in both directions the war goes nowhere, leading to a drawn out cold war between US/England and fascist europe.
I imagine Italian Intervention, hostility towards Bulgaria, Romania being nearby and Russia being right there would persuade them to ally with the Entente. The WW2 scenario though is more puzzling.
I like how you use the term Roman instead Byzantine which is more accurate. And how you made Rome a replublic during Napoleanic wars like it used to be in ancient times.
They never called themselves byzantines. Always romans. And would have continued to do so. "Byzantine "was invented later by historians. So he's right using Roman
So you basically just transferred all of the Ottomans strength into Rome and allocated Rome's strength to other areas from its reclaimed areas but in this timeline on different areas for the alternate history
I think the eastern Roman Empire would industrialized sooner and become more powerful. They were also inventor inventing things such as Greek fire so it would make since if they were to industrialise quicker.
Theory that might be stated on facts: When Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire never fell to Mehmet II, the Ottomans control all of the Near-East. Since most of trade routes are blocked by Ottoman provinces, merchants and explorers must found other means of transportation to the Far-East, particularly India; Christopher Colombus was one of the explorers who originally sailed for India following a different route, only to stumble in America instead. The theory is the following statement: If Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire never fell to the Ottomans, there is a chance that America would be discovered in later years, and not in Colombus life.
Very valid point, and I did consider this for my scenario. But on the other hand, before the fall of Constantinople, Italian merchants still had a monopoly on trade from the Near-East. In this world it would be Italian merchants and the Romans instead of the Ottomans and Italian merchants. The Iberian kingdoms would still not reap very many benefits of trade from the east. Which could still push them to attempt to find different routes to India. In fact, the Portuguese began their exploration of the African coast and establishment of trading outposts before the fall of Constantinople. We will never know what would actually have happened, but I think both my scenario, and your theory are very possible. It would depend on a lot of factors. Appreciate the input.
@@Neatling I also have another theory. It's about reinstating the Roman Empire as the Roman Republic. While I find it relatable that most citizens would desire for democracy in their countries, including the Roman, in that period, I doubt that most of citizens (from Roman Empire) would apply for the abolishment of the Imperial dynasty and the abdication of the Roman Emperor. Since the nation's culture, religion, heritage, history, and political status seems to be depend on the crown and the faith citizens bestowed upon their rulers (both political and ecclesiastical), it would make more sense if the citizens would apply for constitutional monarchy and a united parliamentary system rather than the senate of the former Republic (similar to the current political system in the United Kingdom). Certainly the nation would be renamed as Roman Republic, and it would have met drastic changes throughout history. But again, it is a theory. We will never know if that would be a case among other possibilities.
For me, I liked this alternate history of the E. Roman Empire. I feel that you got a lot of your cues from the actual history that ensued with the Ottoman Empire -- i.e., successes in the 15th century, Armenia wanting independence, Macedonian/Hungarian neighbors vying for a land power grab, possible war with imperial Russia because of Crimea, and 19th century parliamentary reforms to hold the emperor in check. The notion of an emperor would have ended in the 19th-20th century. Japan is the only country with an emperor, even that he/she is a symbolic figurehead. I don't think the Americas would have been discovered for another 50-100 years, maybe even more, as the Italian/Portuguese merchants would have not had any reason to find new trading routes. Western European technological/artistic/political/theocratic advancements CAME forth arguably due to the fall of the E. Roman Empire; it made the West get their act together with finding new trading routes, studying new concepts of art, and exploring old ways of governing, and questioning religion.
@@guillermorivas7819 Without muslims in constantinople I think the rivalry between Catholics and orthodoxs would be bigger, the massacre of the Latins in 1182 proves that the relationship between the two faiths could be very negative: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins That's why I think its possible that the iberian kingdoms decide to find new routes to avoid paying the orthodox Christians.
Exactly. They only went exploring because the empire fell and Muslims and Christians refused to trade on the Silk Road (they used Jews as Middle men because both religions considered Judaism to be another abrahamic religion etc)
Don't be sad because it's over, smile because it happened. Isn't that the saying? Civilizations, nations and empires have their ups and downs. At least Greece is an independent nation today, and doing alright. Of course Greece has issues, but it's still among the better nations to live in, in the world. It's frankly quite impressive that Greek civilization has survived this long. Most ancient civilizations and cultures fizzled out with time. The only remnants of the ancient Egyptian language is Coptic Egyptian which is barely used. And also highly influenced by Greek. Greek and Chinese civilization are the two oldest that have definitively survived till the present.
@@DivineHellas I wouldn't say that has definitively survived till this day. The Indus valley civilization collapsed, and most of the modern inhabitants of India are later Indo-Europeans who settled there. Like how modern Egyptians are mostly Arab, and speak a language unrelated to the old Egyptian one. The ancient Indus valley language also died out with the civilization as far as we know. But the region has indeed been home to civilization for very long. So has modern Iraq, which is also inhabited by quite different people today.
@@Neatling I knew this was the case with arab countries such as Iraq syria and egypt for example but I thought India had been well preserved, but oh okay Idk so much of indian history actually.
@@DivineHellas I must admit I don't know nearly enough either. But I do know the Indus valley civilization somehow died out. And that the modern inhabitants of India are not from that civilization.
Very possible, it's really hard to know how the culture and national identity would evolve in this world. In our world, it makes a lot of sense you grew to identify as Greek instead of Roman, because you were under the Ottomans for such a long time, along with many other minority groups. And when you fought for independence, the Roman/Byzantine empire had been gone for hundreds of years. Before the Byzantines were conquered and fell apart though, they did call themselves the Romans. The Greek people in the empire saw themselves as being Roman and speaking Greek. Greek being one of the 2 major languages of the Roman Empire, along with Latin. Maybe you would want to hold on to that heritage if the empire, which is the remnants of the old Roman Empire, lived on. Maybe not. I just went down the Roman heritage route. But of course, both are very possible. If it were to change to Greece, it would probably be after the civil war in my scenario.
@@Neatling well a civil war is not 100% because as you said in the video the population of the empire is 90%+ Greek I wouldnt say that there would be a civil war because they will just lose resources for just a name change (You got a Sub from me please make more of these videos)
@@SavvasGr7 My idea was more of a revolution for democracy and against the emperor. Like the French revolution. Maybe I should've called it a revolution instead of Civil war. And then I mean that maybe the country would change to Greece if the people came to power rather than the emperor. But nothing is set in stone with alternate history of course. It's all just fun speculation. Thank you so much, really appreciate it. I've been a little slow with the one I'm working on right now because I've had other things in life come up, but there will be a video on what if the Russian revolution never happened soon. A few days maybe. The script is done and everything
@@Neatling you should had started your timeline from 541 when the black death broke out and wipe out 1/3 of the Empire population (What if never happened?)
Great video. I could see the Empire siding with either the Allies or the Axis depending on whether or not they went back to being a republic. I think it would be very interesting to consider how the rest of European history might have been changed for instance. 1. Would the crusades have still happened only, instead of attacking the Muslims, they would have used the excuse of freeing the “holy land” from the Greek Orthodox heresy? Would we have a Greek Orthodox Church nearly as powerful as the Roman Catholic Church today, with essentially Eastern and Western popes? 2. How would it have affected the Renaissance if the Roman Empire still existed? If there were no crusades would the Renaissance have happened at all? Would it have been earlier or later? 3. Most of the destruction of the Ancient Greek and Roman architecture, monuments and literature took place in the repeated wars and invasions AFTER the Empire began its decline in the 11th century. The Parthenon, for example, was largely intact until 1687. Just imagine if, today, we could visit libraries in Constantinople that were founded in the reign of Constantine the Great. Just imagine a shelf labeled “Constantine I” with detailed archives of every correspondence, decree, speech, senate and council meeting, expense report, etc… for every day of his reign. For EVERY emperor. Maybe even copies of archives going all the way back to Augustus or the Republic.
This is maybe the best What if Eastern Rome never fell I've watched among a dozen choices. Only idfference is his assesment in the modern period. the Roman Republic will probably see a renewed expansion during 1850- early 1900s just like what happened to other European powers like France to restore national presitge. remember, the Roman Republic is probably the 1st or very close 2nd (depending on how strong Russia will be). it's entirely possible that a reconquest of Syeria and the levant and maybe even Egypt occur. They can also be the no. 1 cause for World War 1 not Germany or a strong contender.
It's possible they never would. But also possible they still gain it through marriage. Eventually, it's very possible that the Hungarian monarch dies and a Habsburg inherits the throne. The Habsburgs played the royal marriage game very well. They got the Spanish crown for instance.
Neatling sure I agree it’s possible, but would Austria’s entire history just repeat itself all over again? You are telling me that every single variable happens in the exact same way? I simply disagree, I have similar problems with what you did with Russia, you are telling that the Russian Empire wouldn’t be fundamentally different with a ever lasting Byzantine empire at its back door? The influence the Byzantines had over Russian culture would have definitely continued.
To what extent however would be unpredictable, that said you definitely have potential, I just hope you put a little more thought to your alternate timelines.
@@TimeLord-rt7ku I agree that I maybe could focus more on the outside world in my alternate timelines. That is something I will try to do more in the future. But there is a reason why I try and stick to our timeline as much as I can do within reason. And that is that it's completely unpredictable if I go a "realistic" route. Realistically the butterfly effect would likely mean that the world is completely unrecognizable. As an example, all humans alive today have a common ancestor if you go back a few hundred thousand years if I recall correctly. If you were to go back and kill that person, no single human that was born during recorded history would ever have existed. The butterfly effect is a real bitch lol. So in summary, focusing on all the consequences will just lead me down an infinite rabbit hole of changes. And everything I make will just be complete fiction at that point. Since we can never know. Especially with something as far back as 1071. But if I stick somewhat to our history, at least I teach people a bit about actual history, and historical events. I view these videos more so as a look into one out of an infinite possible timelines. And I prefer to keep some real historical aspects, rather than write complete fiction. But again, I will try to focus a bit more on the outside world, and changes there. In this timeline, even though it is close to ours, there are still major changes outside of Rome itself. The middle east is much more divided between Christianity and Islam. And as you mentioned, Russia would be more influenced by Greek/Roman culture. I just didn't get to talk about it, which I probably should have. Sorry for the essay long answer lol.
@@Neatling You are not taking into accout that in our timeline Hungary became fractured in the years following the battle of Mohács, which led to the Habsburgs gaining control over one part and eventually the entire kingdom. Now, without the Ottoman invasion, this wouldn't have happened and even if they played the marriage cards well, the rules of coronation ensured that if the lords didn't like one ruler, they could deny their son the throne. Should that happen, the Habsburgs could've only get it by force, which wouldn't have been an easy task (again, Hungary would've stayed one entity, plus I wouldn't be sure that without the Ottomans Venice and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would've failed, meaning that they could've been allies against the Habsburgs...and don't forget the French either).
I use Photoshop for pretty much everything. I find blank maps online or make them blank myself, and then I color in the nation and use a "drop shadow" on the layer. Sometimes quite a bit goes into it actually lol. But it just depends on how accurate you want to be. I often find historical maps online, then make it transparent, and have it over top of my map, so I can draw in the historical borders by hand. Or maybe like in this video where I wanted a border along the Balkan mountains, I used a satellite image of the Balkans to draw the border along them. I could make a video on how I make the maps maybe after I'm done with the part 2 of this series. If you'd be interested to see exactly how I make them.
I don't see any chance for the ERE to have survived. This is the front gate of Europe. Even if they conquer one region they will have a lot of problems defending it. I can give you example with Bulgaria because I am Bulgarian. Bulgaria was conquered by the ERE between 1018-1185. During this time ERE had to fight with Cumans, Pechenegs, Uzis etc. These are nomadic or seminomadic tribes with excellent warriors and horse archers and they did a lot of damage. Before that Bulgaria was a buffer. If ERE had beaten the turks in Manzikert they would have held firm Anatolia. But in 13th century the mongols came. I don't see how ERE would have stand a chance against the Mongols. In our timeline ERE remained nearly untouched by the mongols. Bulgaria and the Seljuks were devastated by the mongols. This devastation is the reason why they managed to restore the Byzantium in 1261. For me the question is how on earth ERE didn't collapse earlier?
The reason why Balkans countries identities are shaky is partly due to the fall of Byzantium. If a strong Constantinople could strive to the future two things would have happened differently. The Slavic people of the north would have a tough time getting further south, thus the settlers in the region would mainly be tributaries to Constantinople, therefore no Slavic culture and much more difficult for many of the current countries in the Balkans to exist in the modern sense. However one advantage for the region would be massive wealth compared to Western Europe as a strong Constantinople would be a pain in the ass for Italian republics especially in trade and geopolitical significance. With a strong Constantinople the Orthodox church would prosper and its architectural style would likely be a consistent fear across cities of the Balkans. Ultimately this would lead to a true Balkans identity to emerge with Constantinople being a behemoth state in the region. Most of people alive today in the region however are a result of the failed fate of Byzantium. Therefore we should be happy that it didn't succeed as we wouldn't be here to live. So many world fates would be affected by that, that we would be talking about an entirely different timeline for the world.
On a small Greek island with a monastary never occupied by the Turks, still flies the Imperial Flag of the Byzantine Empire...as it as for the last 6 centuries.
To be honest, if that small gate in Constantinople hadn't been left open the Byzantines would have reconquered both Anatolia and the Balkans. The Ottomas were going to give up a day after if that gate had never been found after being constantly defeated in a battle that lasted for years by a sorrounded city state.
you forgot the mention about the crusades, either it was targeted to the byzantines/romans or the muslims. the crusades is really important, as it's the reason that sparked the renassaince.
Best ending in the world 🥺💖 Armenia and Greece protected their culture and didnt suffer from turkofication. Love Greece and Armenia from Philippinea🇵🇭💖🇬🇷🇦🇲
Turkey does not act as a bridge from the West to the East. It serves as a bridge from East to West, "This is something that all Europeans need to understand."
So its pretty much Ottoman history just that it's orthodox and doesn't conquer arabia nor hungary. Having adopted most of the imperial customs and management, and already were called as Rome by all its eastern neighbors, the only difference of this from Ottomans is religion, and somewhat earlier turn to republic. Which is already more than half a millenia of "what if" at that point thus quite optimistic.
Although the Greeks of Eastern Rome considered themselves Roman, I can't see how they would put the latin SPQR on their flag. It'd be more convenient that they were influenced more their ancient past and had a revolution like the Napoleon or Soviet Russia. I can't see Napoleon himself in this story since the person who paid for his tuition was a Greek refugee who came from a family that fled around 1600s I think from Ottoman Greece (or earlier). Plus the reannaisance is believed to be caused by all those Roman Greeks who fled to neighboring countries and *western* countries, bringing with them knowledge, scientists, scholars, thousands of them. Don't forget around 1200s Rome had 60.000.000 of people and they sure fled the Ottomans either close to the fall of Constantinople or after the Ottomans started persecuting Greeks and especially Christians in their lands. I also have a belief that the class of Italy and Rome would be inevitable at WW2, since Mussolini wanted to create a rival Roman Empire and since the actual Roman Empire is actually stronger I'd rather see the Axis of Constantinople - Berlin than Rome or a revised plan to reconquer the western Rome by some self proclaimed dictator. It'd be Ironic to see a Dictator Metaxas and a strong resistance leader Mussolini . It's too perfectly Ironic to not happen! Haha. But to be honest, we can't speculate anything. Even the slightest detail like the butterfly effect could turn the future of earth to something completely different. It'd be nice though, to live in a nation of 300+ millions of Greek speaking people or Greekified people or Greeks than live in an area that no one likes each other when we are literally of the same race. Turks and Greeks are one people, or Turks are Muslimphied Greeks, sadly. You can look up the DNA tests they do and come to the same conclusion. My father turned out to be 3rd cousin of a former Mayor of Niksar , a person who swore he was a Turk, haha. What I like to say is that, *We live in the dark timeline*
@@berat6639 2 Great grandfathers evidently fled from Niksar , there was a note about a specific village or mahala on immigration papers but I don't remember. Great grandmother from Trapezounta at age 6 alone and rest of the family from eastern Thrace outside of Constantinople , can't remember the village exactly but it still exists even found it on google Earth
@@nermainmerl6108 where are you living now and can you look up to documents please im curious, my grandparents are from niksar/gürçeşme(eskidir) village
@@berat6639 I live in Greece now, so one of them Lazaros is from Edekse (Don't know how to write it english or turkish) Niksar (Εντεξε Νεο-Καισαρείας) the other one Charalampos is from Edexe - Erpaa Niksar (Εντεξε -Ερπαα Νεο-Καισαρείας). They were brothers and Charalambos was married to a Sophia from Erpaa (That's why he lived there probably) So Edexe and Erpaa was were they lived. Charalampos and Sophia are evidently my great grandparents
Byzantine Empire was the most technologically advanced country at the time (1071). Why is it assumed that they would fall back in comparison to the West (like the Ottomans did)? And one of the reasons why countries in western Europe began the age of exploration is because Ottoman control of the eastern trade routes. This would not happen with a strong Roman Empire as trade routes would remain open.
When you said the turks retreated to persia and became nobles, does it mean that iran in this timeline would be even more turkicised than the iran we have today? And if so, to what extent? Also, would egypt, the levant, and armenia be much more hellenised in the modern day? Would the library of alexandria remain and would even be expanded upon during rome's reconquest of alexandria? I love this video by the way, not many youtubers bring justice to the constantly bullied hellenic race. Rome ftw!
Unlikely. Iran's culture has always been its biggest strength along with its bureaucracy. The Turkic influences would still be very present, but no different from the Safavids or any of the Turko-Iranian dynasties. They'd still be Persianized with maybe the Oghuz languages being used in the military, while Persian in the court and lingua franca. The only major difference would be their religious affiliation. Without the Ottoman Empire being an existential threat, Iran would be majority Sunni.
I wonder whether Greek nationalism would have ever been a relevant political force, if the Roman Empire remained. Maybe the nationalism would have just been replaced by a push towards republicanism, democracy, secularism and modernisation, which the video mentioned. Going back into the Athenian Golden age or Roman republicanism politically, while still embracing Roman identity. Very interesting thought considering the number of other ethnic groups that lived in the Byzantine empire.
@Neatling Why are you paralleling this so much with otl’s history. 1071 is almost a thousand years in the past. Such a change completely alters history. Why would Napoleon even exist here? He was born 700 years after Manizikert. The nations of France and England only really had their national identities forged in the 14th centuries. Plus it’s unrealistic for Rome to become a Parliamentary Republic like the West. Such political evolution is a major anachronism. The Empire was legally the Republic with as Senate that functioned until 1453. The nature of the Empire was as a Republican monarchy and he ruled by the senate and people of Rome (army). The Byzantine keeping Bulgaria here changes everything. Bulgaria prior to its breakaway in the 1180’s was peacefully hellenizing and had been well integrated into the Empire. The same was true for Serbia as well. Bulgaria in otl broke away because the corrupt and kleptocratic Angeloi emperors levied extortionate taxation. The Empire’s expansion into Egypt means that things are changed from otl. It’s also significantly more powerful now with that trade from the East. This changes so many things in History. The HRE also could be impacted since at this time it actually was quite centralized and Imperial. The Hohenstaufens were well on their way to pulling what the Kings of France did in forming a centralized state. How come the Byzantines didn’t retake Italy or even Sicily? In otl Manuel I Komnenos led an army and almost took the Sicilian Crown It’s also not fated for the Mongols to even invade since the pod is over 100 years before they start their conquests. Genghis could die, or even not be born at all. He also might not choose to expand into the Middle East. The Khwarezmids, had a different sultan been on its throne, could have arranged for more amicable relations with the Mongols.
All very valid points. But you must realize that it's impossible to actually predict alternate history. It's all fiction and educated guessing. The butterfly effect would likely mean the world is unrecognizable. States and kingdoms that never existed in our world would exist in this one. Realistically that is. Also not a single person who lived after, let's say at least the 1200's, would exist in this world. None of us today would obviously. The butterfly effect ruins everything when it comes to realistic alternate history. So I chose to just accept that this is one out of an infinite possibilities. And that it really is just fiction and fun speculation. Not what would actually happen. No one has any idea what would actually happen. There are infinite possibilities. I stick to things that happened in our timeline because then my videos seem more historical and also teach people a little about actual history. Otherwise I would have to completely make up countries and kingdoms, as well as historical events, that never existed or happened.
I agree with Neatling here. At any point in time, there are infinite possibilities going forwards. If the Byzantines won at Manzikert, there is a timeline in which the apes took over the world. It may be the least likely series of events, but it is still possible, and it is as valid as any other timeline. A timeline in which a Napoleon figure is born in Corsica 700 years after the Byzantines won is still a valid timeline, and it is arguably the most interesting timeline, which is why we are discussing it. Even if you went 1000 years back in time and changed seemingly nothing, when you would travel back to the present it would be unrecognisable. There would be a slim chance that you would end up in today's world, but most likely Napoleon would not exist, and Genghis Khan would never have been born. There are plenty of things in OTL that someone from an alternate timeline would deem unrealistic. Does that mean that the history we live in is not valid? I feel like people are too harsh on alternate histories for including things that happened in OTL in alternate timelines. I get why; I've seen more than enough things like 'if the neanderthals never died out, who would fight in WWII'. But I don't think it makes an alternate history any less valid. In most cases.
the existence of the Ottoman Empire sparked the age of discovery. I'm sure it would still happen in this timeline, with European countries eventually establishing colonies all over the world, but the outcome might be drastically different. For instance, I don't think it would be the Spanish and Portuguese who established the first colonial empires.
You can tell how good this kind of videos are because you don't see "Love from ♥♥" or some arrogant rant about how turks are the dominant race of the world. Instead, you get people with an actual brain and civillised discussions and good questions about this alternate timeline we all wish was real.
Not quite. The phrase Senatus Populusque Romanus faded away totally during the 4rd century AD. With the rise of Diocletian, the Roman emperors made no pretense whatsoever that the Roman senate was no longer the true power in Roman society. The emperor was addressed as dominus and δεσπότης after his reign. Before Diocletian, the emperors were called princeps/πρίγκεψ as a farce that republicanism still existed. Increasingly, the Roman Empire's symbols which replaced SPQR were foremostly the Imperial Eagle which remained unchanged until Emperor Emmanuel II Paleologus added a second head in the 14th century, as well as the Greek letters ΧΡ which represented Christ.
Hey Neatling, I'm wondering if you would be willing to share the files for the two flags of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire you used in this video?
Small corections: 0:40 Julius Caesar was not an emperor. Caesar proclaimed himself dictator for Life (dicator actually being a legal office in the republic) for 5 years until his assassination. Octavian was the one to become the first emperor and formally ended the republic forever after winning the civil war. Caesar also only lived until 44 BC so not "after" rome was in control of the mediterranean for half a Millennia. 1:20 The Seljuks aren't nomands anymore at this point. They are a highly persianized turkic empire and would probably be able to recover even if they'd loose at manzikert considering their size and wealth at the time.
What if Roman Empire had adopted the cult of Makima, Revy, Cutie Honey, Marin Kitagawa, Trixie Tang, Judy Neutron, Marge Simpson, Wendy Corduroy, Lois Griffin, Sailor Moon and Maddie Fenton instead of Abrahamic shit?
This is interesting, but one issue is that western European and American history seems to go the same way as in our timeline, even though in this scenario there would be no crusades and no wars with the Ottomans in the Danube valley and North Africa -- that this would still lead to a French Revolution at the end of the 18th century, two world wars in the 20, Soviet victory, etc. seems unlikely. While Europe would certainly still be tumultuous in this timeline, I doubt it would be tumultuous in exactly the same way, particularly since the Balkan Wars that were the powder keg that set off WWI (Serbian nationalism getting a boost, leading to the clash over Bosnia). Still, it's fun to speculate on a Byzantine state surviving into modern times.
Interesting. To nit-pick, there probably wouldn't have been a Mamluk regime in Egypt for the hypothetical surviving Byzantines to defeat, as the Mamluks came to power as a consequence of the 7th Crusade... And if the Byzantines had won at Manzikert then the crusades wouldn't have come about in the first place, probably. I wonder if there would have been an age of exploration in quite the same way, too, in and around the 16th century, as part of the motivation for that was getting around the Ottoman Empire, which wouldn't exist in this scenario. I can't imagine that the Napoleonic wars, if they happened, would have occurred in anything like the same way, either. Napoleon's Egyptian campaign would either never have happened or it would have been a conflict with Byzantium.
Julius Caesar was never emperor. Even his adopted son Octavian, who took the name Julius Caesar upon adoption, was only “princeps”, or “first citizen” meaning first among equals.
Does That Mean That Greece as a Country wouldnt exist? Turkish People would become something like Kurds today? Or would they have a country in Western Iran?
If only Basil II had married and had children as well as reformed the competition between the Anatolian aristocracy and central bureaucracy. Having sons and daughters to intermarry east and west regionally would help him better strengthen ties with the Balkans and Armenia. Also, remember that the revolutions of the 19th century had repeated push back from monarchies of the time so I could imagine an eventual constitution monarchy version of this scenario similar to the United Kingdom with Elizabeth II today.
I don't think Rome would side with the entente in WW1. My take is that WW1 was not an ideological war like WW2, it can be seen as a struggle between mostly land based empires against mostly naval/oversea based Empires. Also Rome would probably have a very conflictual relationship with Russia, since they have conflicting interests in the Black Sea etc Joining the central powers and winning might have also meant to recover the lost territories in the middle East and Levant now occupied by France and England
You constantly assuming that religion, language and culture would remain the same as in your timeline really throws me off. You're telling me that after hundreds and hundreds of years of Byzantine control, all of Byzantium's eastern provinces would still remain Muslim and continue becoming Muslim and begin speaking Arabic? Next you're going to tell me that the nonexistent Muslim Turks that live in Anatolia break free from Byzantium to form Turkey.
7:54 What did they gain/lose? You're just implying they fought and then all the gains they made disappeared? Did they demand nothing? Why didn't they restore their control over the Danube and weaken Bulgaria?
Actually, point of departure of my scenario is the battle of Manzikurt. This is well after the arab invasions so the middle east was already mostly arab speaking and muslim. In real life. The Turks, in real life, controlled Persia and much of the middle east. Then they defeated the Byzantines/Roman at Manzikurt and started a mass-migration from further in Asia to Anatolia. In this scenario, the Romans defeat the Seljuk Turks at Manzikurt instead, and they never immigrate to Anatolia, but stay in Persia. In this scenario, there are no Turks in Anatolia. There are still Armenians, and they break free to form Armenia. Peacefully. But I do agree that I maybe should've talked more about the outside world. For instance, in my scenario, I imagine there would be a small Christian state along the coast in the levant since it was part of Byzantium for many years in this scenario. Also, I should've focused more on what happened during the world wars, I see how that was not very clear. So your criticism is noted and I'll try to do better in the future, thank you
@@Neatling The Christian Copts in Egypt survive to this day with generous estimates putting their numbers at 10% of Egypt's population, though their numbers are steadily declining. Egypt's Christian population would probably have been at ~25% at the time the Byzantines reconquered them in your timeline and I'm assuming that they wouldn't tolerate Muslims and would try to undo the Islamization, so Coptic Christianity and the Coptic language (a descendant of Ancient Egyptian) would likely have seen a renaissance with Christianization programs putting them back in power in Egypt. In your timeline though, you didn't touch the Copts and assumed that demographic trends would continue and that Egypt would break free, because they were Muslims, despite there also being a large Christian minority.
@@Neatling Also, the "smaller Muslim areas" at 5:17 are the heartlands of the Assyrians, a Christian people who survive to this day despite constant suppression and who can be traced back to ancient Babylon and Assyria. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_people#/media/File:Syriac_Christianity.svg There are literally no "smaller Muslim areas" that can break away if the areas had become Christianized again and the Christian minorities encouraged. There weren't even many Muslims there to begin with in your timeline.
@@nichl474 Point taken on the "smaller Muslim areas". I should've looked more into approximate ethnic and religious maps from that time period. And I agree that the Coptics would probably remain at least a much bigger group in Egypt. So you're absolutely correct, thanks for your input man, fact-checkers like you keep me on my toes when it comes to research, and that's a good thing lol. So yes, in this scenario the middle east would've been much more divided in terms of religion. There would be a lot more Christians, but of course, still Muslims as well. So if I were to change it, that area would either remain a part of Rome, or become an independent Assyrian nation. And old Egyptian Coptic language and culture would be prominent, Egypt would probably be a mix of that and Islamic/Arab influence. Would be interesting to cover, I might consider doing a part 3 with some minor corrections and maybe focusing on this hybrid Muslim-Arab/Coptic-Egyptian nation. And maybe one on an independent Christian Assyrian nation. As like an extension of this scenario.
You guys can diagnose me with stupid, because i was watching this as if it was actual history. Once it got to the 1400s I thought "didn't rome collapse here? Eh maybe not idk" It took until the 1700s for me to check the title....
Impressive. My son really loves your channel and alternate histories as a genre. One recommendation: when examining/extrapolating alternatives for Orthodox Christian lands, please bear in mind the worldview of the populations therein. The emperor represented God's authority on earth and His Will enacted through imperial governance. God Himself existed [exists] in all the faithful of the Orthodox Church, and He guided them to true obedience to Himself & growth into becoming like Him--holy. Democratic or republican ideas, indeed any limitation of the Divine authority of the emperor, was abhorrent to Orthodox Christians. It would be like limiting God.
@@Valkyraw the Greeks came from Anatolia in the Neolithic period. After Alexander the Great all Anatolian tribes (who where genetically so close to the Greeks that they became Greek) adopted the Greek culture and language and identity. Anatolia was thousands of years greek before the Turkic tribes of Central Asia came 1071 ad.
@@ValkyrawI don’t know what you are. Maybe you are one of the real central Asian Turks (if you look Asian it is probably the case, look for example the Turks of Kazachstan or the Uigurs of China). If you look European you are probably genetically Greek. But dna ist not everything, you decide what you are.
@@MagisterMilitumBelisarius5365 ok. By the way if you are curious, you can see the current seal of Rome, it's a red shield with a little golden cross and the letters SPQR. it appears in our identity cards.
I posted this below, but here goes again. Not quite. The phrase Senatus Populusque Romanus faded away totally during the 4rd century AD. With the rise of Diocletian, the Roman emperors made no pretense whatsoever that the Roman senate was no longer the true power in Roman society. The emperor was addressed as dominus and δεσπότης after his reign. Before Diocletian, the emperors were called princeps/πρίγκεψ as a farce that republicanism still existed. Increasingly, the Roman Empire's symbols which replaced SPQR were foremostly the Imperial Eagle which remained unchanged until Emperor Emmanuel II Paleologus added a second head in the 14th century, as well as the Greek letters ΧΡ which represented Christ.
@@locomotivebearingdown5381 Thanks for the information. Maybe in the democracy movements, activists and scholar would have had prefer to resurrect the phrase long out of use, or maybe Ῥώμη would suffice
It wouldn't be far-fetched if the seeds of republicanism and revolution were first sown in Eastern Rome itself, as it was still the direct successor of the old Roman Republic and it's situated in the Greek lands where democracy first proliferated. I think that in the 18th Century there would be Byzantine intellectuals who would have started promoting more a national consciousness based on classical Greece.
There's no way Byzantium would not be a member of the Axis powers come world war 2. With Revanchism and a renewed interest in combining the Modern with the Classical, Byzantium would become a steadfast ally of Italy, seeking to divide parts of Europe between each other like in the Classical World. Yugoslavia in particular would be invaded.
I would imagine that in these alternative scenarios the Romanov family would not have died as the Roman Republic has always had good relations with Russia it would only be logical that they would grant the Romanovs asylum in Rome in 1917 given that they are the closest to the Russian border.
A few corrections (and clarifications): Egypt is still lost, but it isn't the Muslim/Arab Egypt we know today. It's a mix of Coptic Egyptian and Muslim-Arab culture, which I will make a video on in the future. Also, The "Smaller muslim areas" lost at 5:17 aren't Muslim. It's a now independent Christian Assyrian nation, which I will also take a look at in the future. Also at some point in the Video I said Baltic instead of Balkan lol
What would be the electoral system specifically would it be a somewhat epistocratic republican system almost like the old Roman republic , representative democracy, and do you have anything else in mind
can i make russian subtitles to your videos?
*Brother could u please make a video on Fraxinetum, the Medieval Muslim Emirate of Switzerland‼️‼️*
In Egypt i think the muslim became the majority only in 14-15 century if i remember right.
Fun fact Egypt is already mixed culture between Coptic Orthodox Christian and Arab Suni Islam (I know it because I live in Egypt)
ww2 roman republic vs italy: you want to be the new rome? I AM ROME
Byzantine during cold war : nah i'm good
Byzantine during Russo-Ukraine war : okay i'm on America's side and join NATO
Thank you for still calling it roman empire. Not even eastern, just roman. Even the byzantines themselves would be happy for this. Good work!
No problem, it is more historically accurate ;)
Eastern lad.
This makes no sense, Roman refers to the city of Rome. If the Roman Empire loses the city of Rome, it's no longer Roman.
@@AlefeLucas Constantinople was named "New Rome" and was made the new capital of the Empire. It was still very much Roman in government, the codes of law were the same and many elements even brought in during Augustus's time were still in the Empire. Sure, they lost their original city but the government is what mattered. Those who are a citizen of the government were Roman.
Though I will admit, it is much easier to look at Byzantium as more of a successor state rather than the continuation of Rome because of how different it was than the ancient period of the Empire.
@@romainvicta8817 I agree with all you said. Btw ur last part about it being so different yes it was however we talk about an empire stretching for 1.5 millennials... the only logical and natural thing is to expect it to be different. We even talk about two entirely different epochs of history when talking about this Empires history and that is Antiquity and Medieval era.
And I find it so interesting that some people use the argument that East Rome having so much of a Hellenic Character therefore justifying East Rome to not be Roman when Rome always was Greek-Latin hence the world wide term the “Graeco-Roman World” it only shows how little these people know about Roman history.
If the Byzantine empire modernised better than Russia, which is safe to assume. wouldnt they be able to easily beat any middle eastern army?
True, I also considered having it colonize all of Iraq and Syria and keeping Egypt. Then maybe decolonizing a lot later. But I went with the civil war and unstable Rome in the age of revolutions instead. But yeah I see where you're coming from. I was a little unsure of which route to go with. I just knew I wanted a Rome/Byzantium centered around what used to be the Greek-speaking core of the empire in our world, by the end of it. But if you want to see a thick Rome, I will probably make a video on what if Rome never split and the West also survived at some point ;)
@@Neatling that'd be an awesome vid
Easily. The Arab armies have had a terrible recording in the last 50 years.
@@scvboy1 Not in just past 50, friend. Basically post 1200 AD Arabs were ruled by either Turks or Persianised Turks (or even Albanians in the case of Egypt). Or westerners.
@@OkurkaBinLadin True, I was just talking about since their independence.
Syria would not have been a Muslim Dominate country in this timeline because back around 1071 they had a sizeable Christian population and if they were recaptured by the Empire shortly after the battle of manzikert like you say in this timeline then the vast majority of Syria and Assyria would be heavily christianized and they'd see no reason to to break away from the empire
Maby they would break up with the empire..... for not being greek
@@hailgiratinathetruegod7564 before they were arabized, they spoke Syriac and only used Greeks as a lingua franca.
@@hailgiratinathetruegod7564 greeks would assimlated them
I'm only seeing this now, but this was uploaded on my birthday. Thanks for a fantastic gift! God damn I love hearing people call The ERE just "Rome"
I wish the empire never fell, it was something else.
This is such a jewel, I've been looking for so long an alternate history video about eastern rome
Appreciate it man
The Eastern Roman Empire would be in an arms race with Iran right now.
Iran? Maybe Seljuks, Maybe Aqkoyunlu, maybe Safawids...but not Iran...
A bit different kind of Iran. More Turkish.
But yes if something stayed the same during the entire Roman history all the way to the Arab invasion it was being in war with Iran.
@@ckrvamusik Iran always called itself Iran, those are the names of the dynasties
@@duduchannel6729 bullshit
That also means that Iran and Rome would've been in conflict for over a thousand years, since antiquity
I'm honestly not sure ww2 would play out the same. After all Italy was only expansionist because it sought to reform the roman empire but if the empire never fell they'd have no basis to reclaim the empire etc. Most likely the fascist movement would have been in the Roman Republic and led to them joining the Axis rather than the allies. Just my take on it.
I thought of that too. ERE would likely have replaced Italy in our timeline wanting to rebuild the Empire. They might even annex Italy itself and Egypt back. They’d eventually lose likely do to Soviet Invasion from the East and that might make them into a communist puppet state for the next 40 years though.
Italy probably would have seen the eastern empire as a pretender, much like the HRE did in medieval times.
For me, I liked this alternate history of the E. Roman Empire. I feel that you got a lot of your cues from the actual history that ensued with the Ottoman Empire -- i.e., successes in the 15th century, Armenia wanting independence, Macedonian/Hungarian neighbors vying for a land power grab, possible war with imperial Russia because of Crimea, and 19th century parliamentary reforms to hold the emperor in check. The notion of an emperor would have ended in the 19th-20th century. Japan is the only country with an emperor, even that he/she is a symbolic figurehead.
I don't think the Americas would have been discovered for another 50-100 years, maybe even more, as the Italian/Portuguese merchants would have not had any reason to find new trading routes. Western European technological/artistic/political/theocratic advancements CAME forth arguably due to the fall of the E. Roman Empire; it made the West get their act together with finding new trading routes, studying new concepts of art, and exploring old ways of governing, and questioning religion.
Without muslims in constantinople I think the rivalry between Catholics and orthodoxs would be bigger, the massacre of the Latins in 1182 proves that the relationship between the two faiths could be very negative: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins
That's why I think its possible that the iberian kingdoms decide to find new routes anyways.
@@ffls775 well yeah,but they said that 50-100 years later,because byzantine still a Christian,and Portugal, Castille and other european trade route would still be from constantinople to Venice tho
well 1 small bit of critique, the entire renaissance came forth out of the fall of constantinople, where a lot of scholars left with books and texts from antiquity, which got the renaissance going, also the portuguese went to look for new trade routes because the muslim turks didn't allow them to trade, but if the byzantines did allow them to trade they would've had no reason to look for a new expensive and even dangerous trading route, halting most of european over seas expansion. not a few things would change, a ton would change.
@@ffls775 well, tbf it's unlikely the byzantine economy was partly based around that trade, so they wouldn't refuse the catholic merchants access to the markets, which the ottomans did and thus the iberians went looking for a new trade route.
which Macedonias are you referring to? there were no any hostile nation calling themselves Macedonians
Why did Rome side with the Allies in WW1? They stole their land (which you said was mostly Christian) in the Levant. Seems like joining the Central Powers would be smarter because
1. They were winning until the USA joined
2. They had more to gain from it (like Crimea, Levant, maybe even Egypt or the Balkans if they got very ambitious).
Overall great video, i just had questions about that.
main reason would most likely be because rome had literally just won a civil war to overthrow a monarchy, if they sided with monarchs (germany, austria). It would quite literally go against their fundamental reason for even existing. In addition to this, they would also have territorial ambitions too (although it seems in this timeline they got nothing). As austria was on their borders. Lastly, the british and french yoinking the levant was actually favorable to romes interests in the future as they now have a powerful buffer against the saud's of arabia who were quickly expanding to take over the arabian peninsula
One could make a dark future version from this, where the democrats lose the civil war to the imperialists, later leading to an german-byzantine axis instead of italy. Rome annexes italy while germany invaded poland. This could lead to the soviet union collapsing under a combined attack, leaving only england unoccupied in europe.
After unsuccessfull air strikes in both directions the war goes nowhere, leading to a drawn out cold war between US/England and fascist europe.
@@Clayne151 I that this timeline. But no one is winning a war invading Russia.
I imagine Italian Intervention, hostility towards Bulgaria, Romania being nearby and Russia being right there would persuade them to ally with the Entente. The WW2 scenario though is more puzzling.
@@mysteryjunkie9808 Germany ww1???
Roma Invicta!
I like how you use the term Roman instead Byzantine which is more accurate. And how you made Rome a replublic during Napoleanic wars like it used to be in ancient times.
Not that acurrate do.
it was byzantine (greek) in culture so Byzantium is the correct term
@@MrShoulder yes byzantine its to make a lime between the roman latin west and the byzantine greek east.
They never called themselves byzantines. Always romans. And would have continued to do so. "Byzantine "was invented later by historians. So he's right using Roman
@@ivanf.482 Its better Byzantine empire because it stresses the Greekness of the empire.
So you basically just transferred all of the Ottomans strength into Rome and allocated Rome's strength to other areas from its reclaimed areas but in this timeline on different areas for the alternate history
I think the eastern Roman Empire would industrialized sooner and become more powerful. They were also inventor inventing things such as Greek fire so it would make since if they were to industrialise quicker.
I agree
u realise that greek fire is mythology
@@Kilorical What? No it’s not. It a well documented weapon. It younger than Greek mythology by a couple millennia. It’s even younger then Islam
Theory that might be stated on facts: When Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire never fell to Mehmet II, the Ottomans control all of the Near-East. Since most of trade routes are blocked by Ottoman provinces, merchants and explorers must found other means of transportation to the Far-East, particularly India; Christopher Colombus was one of the explorers who originally sailed for India following a different route, only to stumble in America instead.
The theory is the following statement: If Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire never fell to the Ottomans, there is a chance that America would be discovered in later years, and not in Colombus life.
Very valid point, and I did consider this for my scenario. But on the other hand, before the fall of Constantinople, Italian merchants still had a monopoly on trade from the Near-East. In this world it would be Italian merchants and the Romans instead of the Ottomans and Italian merchants. The Iberian kingdoms would still not reap very many benefits of trade from the east. Which could still push them to attempt to find different routes to India. In fact, the Portuguese began their exploration of the African coast and establishment of trading outposts before the fall of Constantinople. We will never know what would actually have happened, but I think both my scenario, and your theory are very possible. It would depend on a lot of factors. Appreciate the input.
@@Neatling I also have another theory. It's about reinstating the Roman Empire as the Roman Republic. While I find it relatable that most citizens would desire for democracy in their countries, including the Roman, in that period, I doubt that most of citizens (from Roman Empire) would apply for the abolishment of the Imperial dynasty and the abdication of the Roman Emperor. Since the nation's culture, religion, heritage, history, and political status seems to be depend on the crown and the faith citizens bestowed upon their rulers (both political and ecclesiastical), it would make more sense if the citizens would apply for constitutional monarchy and a united parliamentary system rather than the senate of the former Republic (similar to the current political system in the United Kingdom). Certainly the nation would be renamed as Roman Republic, and it would have met drastic changes throughout history.
But again, it is a theory. We will never know if that would be a case among other possibilities.
For me, I liked this alternate history of the E. Roman Empire. I feel that you got a lot of your cues from the actual history that ensued with the Ottoman Empire -- i.e., successes in the 15th century, Armenia wanting independence, Macedonian/Hungarian neighbors vying for a land power grab, possible war with imperial Russia because of Crimea, and 19th century parliamentary reforms to hold the emperor in check. The notion of an emperor would have ended in the 19th-20th century. Japan is the only country with an emperor, even that he/she is a symbolic figurehead.
I don't think the Americas would have been discovered for another 50-100 years, maybe even more, as the Italian/Portuguese merchants would have not had any reason to find new trading routes. Western European technological/artistic/political/theocratic advancements CAME forth arguably due to the fall of the E. Roman Empire; it made the West get their act together with finding new trading routes, studying new concepts of art, and exploring old ways of governing, and questioning religion.
@@guillermorivas7819 Without muslims in constantinople I think the rivalry between Catholics and orthodoxs would be bigger, the massacre of the Latins in 1182 proves that the relationship between the two faiths could be very negative: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins
That's why I think its possible that the iberian kingdoms decide to find new routes to avoid paying the orthodox Christians.
Exactly. They only went exploring because the empire fell and Muslims and Christians refused to trade on the Silk Road (they used Jews as Middle men because both religions considered Judaism to be another abrahamic religion etc)
Dont do that... dont give me hope
Don't be sad because it's over, smile because it happened. Isn't that the saying? Civilizations, nations and empires have their ups and downs.
At least Greece is an independent nation today, and doing alright. Of course Greece has issues, but it's still among the better nations to live in, in the world.
It's frankly quite impressive that Greek civilization has survived this long. Most ancient civilizations and cultures fizzled out with time. The only remnants of the ancient Egyptian language is Coptic Egyptian which is barely used. And also highly influenced by Greek.
Greek and Chinese civilization are the two oldest that have definitively survived till the present.
@@Neatling Do not forget about India.. the oldest civilization to still remain on this planet. Other than that I 100% agree with you.
@@DivineHellas I wouldn't say that has definitively survived till this day. The Indus valley civilization collapsed, and most of the modern inhabitants of India are later Indo-Europeans who settled there. Like how modern Egyptians are mostly Arab, and speak a language unrelated to the old Egyptian one. The ancient Indus valley language also died out with the civilization as far as we know. But the region has indeed been home to civilization for very long. So has modern Iraq, which is also inhabited by quite different people today.
@@Neatling I knew this was the case with arab countries such as Iraq syria and egypt for example but I thought India had been well preserved, but oh okay Idk so much of indian history actually.
@@DivineHellas I must admit I don't know nearly enough either. But I do know the Indus valley civilization somehow died out. And that the modern inhabitants of India are not from that civilization.
I will be honest as Greek I think that we would change the name to Greece at some point but it's cool to be called Roman's.
Very possible, it's really hard to know how the culture and national identity would evolve in this world. In our world, it makes a lot of sense you grew to identify as Greek instead of Roman, because you were under the Ottomans for such a long time, along with many other minority groups. And when you fought for independence, the Roman/Byzantine empire had been gone for hundreds of years. Before the Byzantines were conquered and fell apart though, they did call themselves the Romans. The Greek people in the empire saw themselves as being Roman and speaking Greek. Greek being one of the 2 major languages of the Roman Empire, along with Latin. Maybe you would want to hold on to that heritage if the empire, which is the remnants of the old Roman Empire, lived on. Maybe not. I just went down the Roman heritage route. But of course, both are very possible. If it were to change to Greece, it would probably be after the civil war in my scenario.
@@Neatling well a civil war is not 100% because as you said in the video the population of the empire is 90%+ Greek I wouldnt say that there would be a civil war because they will just lose resources for just a name change (You got a Sub from me please make more of these videos)
@@SavvasGr7 My idea was more of a revolution for democracy and against the emperor. Like the French revolution. Maybe I should've called it a revolution instead of Civil war. And then I mean that maybe the country would change to Greece if the people came to power rather than the emperor. But nothing is set in stone with alternate history of course. It's all just fun speculation.
Thank you so much, really appreciate it. I've been a little slow with the one I'm working on right now because I've had other things in life come up, but there will be a video on what if the Russian revolution never happened soon. A few days maybe. The script is done and everything
@@Neatling ok keep at your videos you will surely grow if you continue with these videos Good Night!
@@Neatling you should had started your timeline from 541 when the black death broke out and wipe out 1/3 of the Empire population (What if never happened?)
Great video. I could see the Empire siding with either the Allies or the Axis depending on whether or not they went back to being a republic. I think it would be very interesting to consider how the rest of European history might have been changed for instance.
1. Would the crusades have still happened only, instead of attacking the Muslims, they would have used the excuse of freeing the “holy land” from the Greek Orthodox heresy? Would we have a Greek Orthodox Church nearly as powerful as the Roman Catholic Church today, with essentially Eastern and Western popes?
2. How would it have affected the Renaissance if the Roman Empire still existed? If there were no crusades would the Renaissance have happened at all? Would it have been earlier or later?
3. Most of the destruction of the Ancient Greek and Roman architecture, monuments and literature took place in the repeated wars and invasions AFTER the Empire began its decline in the 11th century. The Parthenon, for example, was largely intact until 1687.
Just imagine if, today, we could visit libraries in Constantinople that were founded in the reign of Constantine the Great. Just imagine a shelf labeled “Constantine I” with detailed archives of every correspondence, decree, speech, senate and council meeting, expense report, etc… for every day of his reign. For EVERY emperor. Maybe even copies of archives going all the way back to Augustus or the Republic.
So basically, Greece and Turkey's modern holdings + a senatorial democracy.
Neat.
I personally would have kept/reformed the monarchy, but that's the beauty of alternate history, you get an infinite amount of takes on things.
This is maybe the best What if Eastern Rome never fell I've watched among a dozen choices. Only idfference is his assesment in the modern period. the Roman Republic will probably see a renewed expansion during 1850- early 1900s just like what happened to other European powers like France to restore national presitge. remember, the Roman Republic is probably the 1st or very close 2nd (depending on how strong Russia will be). it's entirely possible that a reconquest of Syeria and the levant and maybe even Egypt occur. They can also be the no. 1 cause for World War 1 not Germany or a strong contender.
Small question, realistically how could the Habsburg gain the Hungarian crown if the kingdom of Hungary never fell?
It's possible they never would. But also possible they still gain it through marriage. Eventually, it's very possible that the Hungarian monarch dies and a Habsburg inherits the throne. The Habsburgs played the royal marriage game very well. They got the Spanish crown for instance.
Neatling sure I agree it’s possible, but would Austria’s entire history just repeat itself all over again? You are telling me that every single variable happens in the exact same way? I simply disagree, I have similar problems with what you did with Russia, you are telling that the Russian Empire wouldn’t be fundamentally different with a ever lasting Byzantine empire at its back door? The influence the Byzantines had over Russian culture would have definitely continued.
To what extent however would be unpredictable, that said you definitely have potential, I just hope you put a little more thought to your alternate timelines.
@@TimeLord-rt7ku I agree that I maybe could focus more on the outside world in my alternate timelines. That is something I will try to do more in the future. But there is a reason why I try and stick to our timeline as much as I can do within reason. And that is that it's completely unpredictable if I go a "realistic" route. Realistically the butterfly effect would likely mean that the world is completely unrecognizable. As an example, all humans alive today have a common ancestor if you go back a few hundred thousand years if I recall correctly. If you were to go back and kill that person, no single human that was born during recorded history would ever have existed. The butterfly effect is a real bitch lol. So in summary, focusing on all the consequences will just lead me down an infinite rabbit hole of changes. And everything I make will just be complete fiction at that point. Since we can never know. Especially with something as far back as 1071. But if I stick somewhat to our history, at least I teach people a bit about actual history, and historical events.
I view these videos more so as a look into one out of an infinite possible timelines. And I prefer to keep some real historical aspects, rather than write complete fiction. But again, I will try to focus a bit more on the outside world, and changes there. In this timeline, even though it is close to ours, there are still major changes outside of Rome itself. The middle east is much more divided between Christianity and Islam. And as you mentioned, Russia would be more influenced by Greek/Roman culture. I just didn't get to talk about it, which I probably should have. Sorry for the essay long answer lol.
@@Neatling You are not taking into accout that in our timeline Hungary became fractured in the years following the battle of Mohács, which led to the Habsburgs gaining control over one part and eventually the entire kingdom. Now, without the Ottoman invasion, this wouldn't have happened and even if they played the marriage cards well, the rules of coronation ensured that if the lords didn't like one ruler, they could deny their son the throne. Should that happen, the Habsburgs could've only get it by force, which wouldn't have been an easy task (again, Hungary would've stayed one entity, plus I wouldn't be sure that without the Ottomans Venice and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would've failed, meaning that they could've been allies against the Habsburgs...and don't forget the French either).
overall I feel like this video is an exercise in wishful thinking....but its ok to dream (rome lives in our hearts forever!)
Love the video . I think a alternative history like this of Ostrogoth Rome, if had survived and become a Romano- Gothic empire be a cool video too.
What software do you use for the maps? PS im the same guy as bruh master.
I use Photoshop for pretty much everything. I find blank maps online or make them blank myself, and then I color in the nation and use a "drop shadow" on the layer. Sometimes quite a bit goes into it actually lol. But it just depends on how accurate you want to be. I often find historical maps online, then make it transparent, and have it over top of my map, so I can draw in the historical borders by hand. Or maybe like in this video where I wanted a border along the Balkan mountains, I used a satellite image of the Balkans to draw the border along them.
I could make a video on how I make the maps maybe after I'm done with the part 2 of this series. If you'd be interested to see exactly how I make them.
@@Neatling A video on how you make videos would be great!
Are you sure Napoleon even exists in this timeline? He could be completely butterflied away with almost a _millenium_ of changes.
Love your videos! They are so elaborate and I love the sense for detail.
It’s still in our hearts
I don't see any chance for the ERE to have survived. This is the front gate of Europe. Even if they conquer one region they will have a lot of problems defending it. I can give you example with Bulgaria because I am Bulgarian. Bulgaria was conquered by the ERE between 1018-1185. During this time ERE had to fight with Cumans, Pechenegs, Uzis etc. These are nomadic or seminomadic tribes with excellent warriors and horse archers and they did a lot of damage. Before that Bulgaria was a buffer. If ERE had beaten the turks in Manzikert they would have held firm Anatolia. But in 13th century the mongols came. I don't see how ERE would have stand a chance against the Mongols. In our timeline ERE remained nearly untouched by the mongols. Bulgaria and the Seljuks were devastated by the mongols. This devastation is the reason why they managed to restore the Byzantium in 1261.
For me the question is how on earth ERE didn't collapse earlier?
Cumans and Pechenegs are already Turkic.
As an " Eastern Roman " (Greek) ,that is the most peculiar scenario I ever heard .
The reason why Balkans countries identities are shaky is partly due to the fall of Byzantium. If a strong Constantinople could strive to the future two things would have happened differently. The Slavic people of the north would have a tough time getting further south, thus the settlers in the region would mainly be tributaries to Constantinople, therefore no Slavic culture and much more difficult for many of the current countries in the Balkans to exist in the modern sense. However one advantage for the region would be massive wealth compared to Western Europe as a strong Constantinople would be a pain in the ass for Italian republics especially in trade and geopolitical significance. With a strong Constantinople the Orthodox church would prosper and its architectural style would likely be a consistent fear across cities of the Balkans. Ultimately this would lead to a true Balkans identity to emerge with Constantinople being a behemoth state in the region. Most of people alive today in the region however are a result of the failed fate of Byzantium. Therefore we should be happy that it didn't succeed as we wouldn't be here to live. So many world fates would be affected by that, that we would be talking about an entirely different timeline for the world.
On a small Greek island with a monastary never occupied by the Turks, still flies the Imperial Flag of the Byzantine Empire...as it as for the last 6 centuries.
I like your style, you earned a sub
Thanks man
To be honest, if that small gate in Constantinople hadn't been left open the Byzantines would have reconquered both Anatolia and the Balkans. The Ottomas were going to give up a day after if that gate had never been found after being constantly defeated in a battle that lasted for years by a sorrounded city state.
you forgot the mention about the crusades, either it was targeted to the byzantines/romans or the muslims. the crusades is really important, as it's the reason that sparked the renassaince.
Best ending in the world 🥺💖 Armenia and Greece protected their culture and didnt suffer from turkofication. Love Greece and Armenia from Philippinea🇵🇭💖🇬🇷🇦🇲
Turkey does not act as a bridge from the West to the East.
It serves as a bridge from East to West, "This is something that all Europeans need to understand."
No idea how Ww1 or two happens in the same way in this timeline, given the MASSIVE pod
So its pretty much Ottoman history just that it's orthodox and doesn't conquer arabia nor hungary. Having adopted most of the imperial customs and management, and already were called as Rome by all its eastern neighbors, the only difference of this from Ottomans is religion, and somewhat earlier turn to republic. Which is already more than half a millenia of "what if" at that point thus quite optimistic.
Although the Greeks of Eastern Rome considered themselves Roman, I can't see how they would put the latin SPQR on their flag. It'd be more convenient that they were influenced more their ancient past and had a revolution like the Napoleon or Soviet Russia. I can't see Napoleon himself in this story since the person who paid for his tuition was a Greek refugee who came from a family that fled around 1600s I think from Ottoman Greece (or earlier). Plus the reannaisance is believed to be caused by all those Roman Greeks who fled to neighboring countries and *western* countries, bringing with them knowledge, scientists, scholars, thousands of them. Don't forget around 1200s Rome had 60.000.000 of people and they sure fled the Ottomans either close to the fall of Constantinople or after the Ottomans started persecuting Greeks and especially Christians in their lands. I also have a belief that the class of Italy and Rome would be inevitable at WW2, since Mussolini wanted to create a rival Roman Empire and since the actual Roman Empire is actually stronger I'd rather see the Axis of Constantinople - Berlin than Rome or a revised plan to reconquer the western Rome by some self proclaimed dictator. It'd be Ironic to see a Dictator Metaxas and a strong resistance leader Mussolini . It's too perfectly Ironic to not happen! Haha. But to be honest, we can't speculate anything. Even the slightest detail like the butterfly effect could turn the future of earth to something completely different. It'd be nice though, to live in a nation of 300+ millions of Greek speaking people or Greekified people or Greeks than live in an area that no one likes each other when we are literally of the same race. Turks and Greeks are one people, or Turks are Muslimphied Greeks, sadly. You can look up the DNA tests they do and come to the same conclusion. My father turned out to be 3rd cousin of a former Mayor of Niksar , a person who swore he was a Turk, haha. What I like to say is that, *We live in the dark timeline*
Dude where are you from exactly because my grandfathers are from niksar too
@@berat6639 2 Great grandfathers evidently fled from Niksar , there was a note about a specific village or mahala on immigration papers but I don't remember. Great grandmother from Trapezounta at age 6 alone and rest of the family from eastern Thrace outside of Constantinople , can't remember the village exactly but it still exists even found it on google Earth
@@nermainmerl6108 where are you living now and can you look up to documents please im curious, my grandparents are from niksar/gürçeşme(eskidir) village
@@berat6639 Let me check
@@berat6639 I live in Greece now, so one of them Lazaros is from Edekse (Don't know how to write it english or turkish) Niksar (Εντεξε Νεο-Καισαρείας) the other one Charalampos is from Edexe - Erpaa Niksar (Εντεξε -Ερπαα Νεο-Καισαρείας). They were brothers and Charalambos was married to a Sophia from Erpaa (That's why he lived there probably) So Edexe and Erpaa was were they lived. Charalampos and Sophia are evidently my great grandparents
THIS IS THE BEST
I don't know why i said that in all caps
Agreed. The best!
I would have liked to see further down the road for the imperial family retake power but good video
Byzantine Empire was the most technologically advanced country at the time (1071). Why is it assumed that they would fall back in comparison to the West (like the Ottomans did)? And one of the reasons why countries in western Europe began the age of exploration is because Ottoman control of the eastern trade routes. This would not happen with a strong Roman Empire as trade routes would remain open.
This is basically every Greek’s wet dream
I feel like eastern rome would be a constitutional monarchy after Napoleon. They would've appreciated the amount of royal houses who saved them
When you said the turks retreated to persia and became nobles, does it mean that iran in this timeline would be even more turkicised than the iran we have today? And if so, to what extent? Also, would egypt, the levant, and armenia be much more hellenised in the modern day? Would the library of alexandria remain and would even be expanded upon during rome's reconquest of alexandria? I love this video by the way, not many youtubers bring justice to the constantly bullied hellenic race. Rome ftw!
Unlikely. Iran's culture has always been its biggest strength along with its bureaucracy. The Turkic influences would still be very present, but no different from the Safavids or any of the Turko-Iranian dynasties. They'd still be Persianized with maybe the Oghuz languages being used in the military, while Persian in the court and lingua franca. The only major difference would be their religious affiliation. Without the Ottoman Empire being an existential threat, Iran would be majority Sunni.
I wonder whether Greek nationalism would have ever been a relevant political force, if the Roman Empire remained. Maybe the nationalism would have just been replaced by a push towards republicanism, democracy, secularism and modernisation, which the video mentioned. Going back into the Athenian Golden age or Roman republicanism politically, while still embracing Roman identity. Very interesting thought considering the number of other ethnic groups that lived in the Byzantine empire.
How come this Rome did not become The Sick Man of Europe?
Cool! I'm subscribed
@Neatling
Why are you paralleling this so much with otl’s history. 1071 is almost a thousand years in the past. Such a change completely alters history.
Why would Napoleon even exist here? He was born 700 years after Manizikert. The nations of France and England only really had their national identities forged in the 14th centuries.
Plus it’s unrealistic for Rome to become a Parliamentary Republic like the West. Such political evolution is a major anachronism. The Empire was legally the Republic with as Senate that functioned until 1453. The nature of the Empire was as a Republican monarchy and he ruled by the senate and people of Rome (army).
The Byzantine keeping Bulgaria here changes everything. Bulgaria prior to its breakaway in the 1180’s was peacefully hellenizing and had been well integrated into the Empire. The same was true for Serbia as well. Bulgaria in otl broke away because the corrupt and kleptocratic Angeloi emperors levied extortionate taxation.
The Empire’s expansion into Egypt means that things are changed from otl. It’s also significantly more powerful now with that trade from the East. This changes so many things in History.
The HRE also could be impacted since at this time it actually was quite centralized and Imperial. The Hohenstaufens were well on their way to pulling what the Kings of France did in forming a centralized state.
How come the Byzantines didn’t retake Italy or even Sicily? In otl Manuel I Komnenos led an army and almost took the Sicilian Crown
It’s also not fated for the Mongols to even invade since the pod is over 100 years before they start their conquests. Genghis could die, or even not be born at all. He also might not choose to expand into the Middle East. The Khwarezmids, had a different sultan been on its throne, could have arranged for more amicable relations with the Mongols.
All very valid points. But you must realize that it's impossible to actually predict alternate history. It's all fiction and educated guessing. The butterfly effect would likely mean the world is unrecognizable. States and kingdoms that never existed in our world would exist in this one. Realistically that is. Also not a single person who lived after, let's say at least the 1200's, would exist in this world. None of us today would obviously. The butterfly effect ruins everything when it comes to realistic alternate history. So I chose to just accept that this is one out of an infinite possibilities. And that it really is just fiction and fun speculation. Not what would actually happen. No one has any idea what would actually happen. There are infinite possibilities. I stick to things that happened in our timeline because then my videos seem more historical and also teach people a little about actual history. Otherwise I would have to completely make up countries and kingdoms, as well as historical events, that never existed or happened.
I agree with Neatling here.
At any point in time, there are infinite possibilities going forwards. If the Byzantines won at Manzikert, there is a timeline in which the apes took over the world. It may be the least likely series of events, but it is still possible, and it is as valid as any other timeline. A timeline in which a Napoleon figure is born in Corsica 700 years after the Byzantines won is still a valid timeline, and it is arguably the most interesting timeline, which is why we are discussing it.
Even if you went 1000 years back in time and changed seemingly nothing, when you would travel back to the present it would be unrecognisable. There would be a slim chance that you would end up in today's world, but most likely Napoleon would not exist, and Genghis Khan would never have been born. There are plenty of things in OTL that someone from an alternate timeline would deem unrealistic. Does that mean that the history we live in is not valid?
I feel like people are too harsh on alternate histories for including things that happened in OTL in alternate timelines. I get why; I've seen more than enough things like 'if the neanderthals never died out, who would fight in WWII'. But I don't think it makes an alternate history any less valid. In most cases.
the existence of the Ottoman Empire sparked the age of discovery. I'm sure it would still happen in this timeline, with European countries eventually establishing colonies all over the world, but the outcome might be drastically different. For instance, I don't think it would be the Spanish and Portuguese who established the first colonial empires.
You can tell how good this kind of videos are because you don't see "Love from ♥♥" or some arrogant rant about how turks are the dominant race of the world. Instead, you get people with an actual brain and civillised discussions and good questions about this alternate timeline we all wish was real.
Oh love from Greece ❤️ but hate to your discriminative comment 🤮
@@fzr98 Maybe you need to get some surgery
Oh good luck, spread the "civillised" discussion. How civillised you are with an actual brain full of discrimination and racism🤮🤮
Former Ottoman countries generally do not like Ottoman Empire.
ΓΕΡΟΥΣΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΔΗΜΟΣ instead of SPQR would be more precise!!!
Not quite. The phrase Senatus Populusque Romanus faded away totally during the 4rd century AD. With the rise of Diocletian, the Roman emperors made no pretense whatsoever that the Roman senate was no longer the true power in Roman society. The emperor was addressed as dominus and δεσπότης after his reign. Before Diocletian, the emperors were called princeps/πρίγκεψ as a farce that republicanism still existed. Increasingly, the Roman Empire's symbols which replaced SPQR were foremostly the Imperial Eagle which remained unchanged until Emperor Emmanuel II Paleologus added a second head in the 14th century, as well as the Greek letters ΧΡ which represented Christ.
Your videos have definitely gotten better since this one.
I wonder how the modern day map would have been affected
There's one video that could work: Why the Romans would never dare to retake former imperial lands in the west.
Why Russia Tsardom would attack Byzantium if they are both almost only orthodox nations in the area?
Hey Neatling, I'm wondering if you would be willing to share the files for the two flags of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire you used in this video?
The perfect timeline
Agreed
@@KertPerteson nope its perfect for you westeners
@@faisali.chowdhiry821 Im asian
@@KertPerteson then it is worst
@@ethem9120 Ok sure bro
I would love to live in this timeline.
Same. If only this actually took place instead of our own timeline.
@@KertPerteson why are Americans deadass obsessed with us Turks
@@Yanate1991 Im not American im from asia
@@KertPerteson i would love to live in a timeline where the ottomans never fell
@@faisali.chowdhiry821 ur ottoman is still here its turkey 🇹🇷 and ur erdogan is putting in many reforms to be like ottomans bro
would be interesting during the Italian unification, since there would be two Romes essentially. One in Italy, and the other one in the East.
Small corections:
0:40 Julius Caesar was not an emperor. Caesar proclaimed himself dictator for Life (dicator actually being a legal office in the republic) for 5 years until his assassination. Octavian was the one to become the first emperor and formally ended the republic forever after winning the civil war. Caesar also only lived until 44 BC so not "after" rome was in control of the mediterranean for half a Millennia.
1:20 The Seljuks aren't nomands anymore at this point. They are a highly persianized turkic empire and would probably be able to recover even if they'd loose at manzikert considering their size and wealth at the time.
What if Roman Empire had adopted the cult of Makima, Revy, Cutie Honey, Marin Kitagawa, Trixie Tang, Judy Neutron, Marge Simpson, Wendy Corduroy, Lois Griffin, Sailor Moon and Maddie Fenton instead of Abrahamic shit?
This is such a sad video. Like fever dreams that we have as kids imagining our country expanding and being the strongest.
This is interesting, but one issue is that western European and American history seems to go the same way as in our timeline, even though in this scenario there would be no crusades and no wars with the Ottomans in the Danube valley and North Africa -- that this would still lead to a French Revolution at the end of the 18th century, two world wars in the 20, Soviet victory, etc. seems unlikely. While Europe would certainly still be tumultuous in this timeline, I doubt it would be tumultuous in exactly the same way, particularly since the Balkan Wars that were the powder keg that set off WWI (Serbian nationalism getting a boost, leading to the clash over Bosnia).
Still, it's fun to speculate on a Byzantine state surviving into modern times.
Weird how italy & the city of Rome have little to no connection with the empire in this scenario
Pretty cool alternate history 👍
Interesting. To nit-pick, there probably wouldn't have been a Mamluk regime in Egypt for the hypothetical surviving Byzantines to defeat, as the Mamluks came to power as a consequence of the 7th Crusade... And if the Byzantines had won at Manzikert then the crusades wouldn't have come about in the first place, probably. I wonder if there would have been an age of exploration in quite the same way, too, in and around the 16th century, as part of the motivation for that was getting around the Ottoman Empire, which wouldn't exist in this scenario. I can't imagine that the Napoleonic wars, if they happened, would have occurred in anything like the same way, either. Napoleon's Egyptian campaign would either never have happened or it would have been a conflict with Byzantium.
Really well done video
Julius Caesar was never emperor. Even his adopted son Octavian, who took the name Julius Caesar upon adoption, was only “princeps”, or “first citizen” meaning first among equals.
Does That Mean That Greece as a Country wouldnt exist? Turkish People would become something like Kurds today? Or would they have a country in Western Iran?
If only Basil II had married and had children as well as reformed the competition between the Anatolian aristocracy and central bureaucracy. Having sons and daughters to intermarry east and west regionally would help him better strengthen ties with the Balkans and Armenia.
Also, remember that the revolutions of the 19th century had repeated push back from monarchies of the time so I could imagine an eventual constitution monarchy version of this scenario similar to the United Kingdom with Elizabeth II today.
I hope this guy finds his charisma soon these are interesting concepts
I don't think Rome would side with the entente in WW1.
My take is that WW1 was not an ideological war like WW2, it can be seen as a struggle between mostly land based empires against mostly naval/oversea based Empires.
Also Rome would probably have a very conflictual relationship with Russia, since they have conflicting interests in the Black Sea etc
Joining the central powers and winning might have also meant to recover the lost territories in the middle East and Levant now occupied by France and England
Byzantine Empire would stay
*Happy Greek noises*
*Sad Ottoman noises*
You constantly assuming that religion, language and culture would remain the same as in your timeline really throws me off. You're telling me that after hundreds and hundreds of years of Byzantine control, all of Byzantium's eastern provinces would still remain Muslim and continue becoming Muslim and begin speaking Arabic? Next you're going to tell me that the nonexistent Muslim Turks that live in Anatolia break free from Byzantium to form Turkey.
7:54 What did they gain/lose? You're just implying they fought and then all the gains they made disappeared? Did they demand nothing? Why didn't they restore their control over the Danube and weaken Bulgaria?
Actually, point of departure of my scenario is the battle of Manzikurt. This is well after the arab invasions so the middle east was already mostly arab speaking and muslim. In real life. The Turks, in real life, controlled Persia and much of the middle east. Then they defeated the Byzantines/Roman at Manzikurt and started a mass-migration from further in Asia to Anatolia. In this scenario, the Romans defeat the Seljuk Turks at Manzikurt instead, and they never immigrate to Anatolia, but stay in Persia. In this scenario, there are no Turks in Anatolia. There are still Armenians, and they break free to form Armenia. Peacefully.
But I do agree that I maybe should've talked more about the outside world. For instance, in my scenario, I imagine there would be a small Christian state along the coast in the levant since it was part of Byzantium for many years in this scenario. Also, I should've focused more on what happened during the world wars, I see how that was not very clear. So your criticism is noted and I'll try to do better in the future, thank you
@@Neatling The Christian Copts in Egypt survive to this day with generous estimates putting their numbers at 10% of Egypt's population, though their numbers are steadily declining. Egypt's Christian population would probably have been at ~25% at the time the Byzantines reconquered them in your timeline and I'm assuming that they wouldn't tolerate Muslims and would try to undo the Islamization, so Coptic Christianity and the Coptic language (a descendant of Ancient Egyptian) would likely have seen a renaissance with Christianization programs putting them back in power in Egypt. In your timeline though, you didn't touch the Copts and assumed that demographic trends would continue and that Egypt would break free, because they were Muslims, despite there also being a large Christian minority.
@@Neatling Also, the "smaller Muslim areas" at 5:17 are the heartlands of the Assyrians, a Christian people who survive to this day despite constant suppression and who can be traced back to ancient Babylon and Assyria. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_people#/media/File:Syriac_Christianity.svg
There are literally no "smaller Muslim areas" that can break away if the areas had become Christianized again and the Christian minorities encouraged. There weren't even many Muslims there to begin with in your timeline.
@@nichl474 Point taken on the "smaller Muslim areas". I should've looked more into approximate ethnic and religious maps from that time period. And I agree that the Coptics would probably remain at least a much bigger group in Egypt. So you're absolutely correct, thanks for your input man, fact-checkers like you keep me on my toes when it comes to research, and that's a good thing lol. So yes, in this scenario the middle east would've been much more divided in terms of religion. There would be a lot more Christians, but of course, still Muslims as well. So if I were to change it, that area would either remain a part of Rome, or become an independent Assyrian nation. And old Egyptian Coptic language and culture would be prominent, Egypt would probably be a mix of that and Islamic/Arab influence. Would be interesting to cover, I might consider doing a part 3 with some minor corrections and maybe focusing on this hybrid Muslim-Arab/Coptic-Egyptian nation. And maybe one on an independent Christian Assyrian nation. As like an extension of this scenario.
What if the Crusader's hadn't attacked the biggest Christian city in the world which they had vowed to protect?
You guys can diagnose me with stupid, because i was watching this as if it was actual history.
Once it got to the 1400s I thought "didn't rome collapse here? Eh maybe not idk"
It took until the 1700s for me to check the title....
Wouldn't they gain some territory after WW1 for fighting on the winning side?
Those were not the borders of the Eastern Roman Empire during 13-14th century, they were much smaller.
As a Turko-Mongolian person I'm feel sorry that the East Roman Empire fell down.
I need to stop watching this, this is so well put that if we didn’t knew better. It would kinda make sense
In every time when Constantinople falls in book video or game a single tier falls of my face
Same. Constantinople is the greatest tragedy of our world.
*Istanbul
@@crazyraptor2907Istanbul is also a greek name
Russia wanting Crimea?
Where have I heard that before?
tbh this really do be kina mega cool ngl
Greeks+Turks sounds cool
Neresi cool ?
@@afsharkaghan5534 go away afgan
@@metehanakar0 Ne Afganı? Türküm ben
@@afsharkaghan5534 cool'un ne anlamda yazildigini anlamadin mi? Sounds cool yani kulağa hoş geliyor demek. Bunun neresi yanlış???
@@metehanakar0 Yanlış olduğunu söylemedim ki
Might I also mention that Montenegrin uses the same double-headded eagle in their flag that Rome used in theirs.
Impressive. My son really loves your channel and alternate histories as a genre.
One recommendation: when examining/extrapolating alternatives for Orthodox Christian lands, please bear in mind the worldview of the populations therein.
The emperor represented God's authority on earth and His Will enacted through imperial governance. God Himself existed [exists] in all the faithful of the Orthodox Church, and He guided them to true obedience to Himself & growth into becoming like Him--holy.
Democratic or republican ideas, indeed any limitation of the Divine authority of the emperor, was abhorrent to Orthodox Christians. It would be like limiting God.
This is what Greece should look like today. That’s the real Greek homeland. Sadly Greece liberated only 30% of its former territory.
Greece 10 million population
Turkey 80 million population
How was Anatolia ever Greece.
It was always anatolians in Anatolia.
@@Valkyraw the Greeks came from Anatolia in the Neolithic period. After Alexander the Great all Anatolian tribes (who where genetically so close to the Greeks that they became Greek) adopted the Greek culture and language and identity. Anatolia was thousands of years greek before the Turkic tribes of Central Asia came 1071 ad.
@@fm-gamer5617 so what you are basically saying is that i am greek and not anatolian?
@@ValkyrawI don’t know what you are. Maybe you are one of the real central Asian Turks (if you look Asian it is probably the case, look for example the Turks of Kazachstan or the Uigurs of China). If you look European you are probably genetically Greek. But dna ist not everything, you decide what you are.
@@fm-gamer5617 so you sad anatolia was thousands of years greek, what happened to the native anatolians then? Luwians etc.
Change that flag. The SPQR is the symbol of Rome still today (town of Rome seal). That's Bisanzio, they wrote in Greek!
@@MagisterMilitumBelisarius5365 ok. By the way if you are curious, you can see the current seal of Rome, it's a red shield with a little golden cross and the letters SPQR. it appears in our identity cards.
Would SKD (in Greek ΣΚΔ, acronym for “σύγκλητος και δῆμος”, meaning “Senate and people”) have been dismantled had she joined the Axis?
I posted this below, but here goes again. Not quite. The phrase Senatus Populusque Romanus faded away totally during the 4rd century AD. With the rise of Diocletian, the Roman emperors made no pretense whatsoever that the Roman senate was no longer the true power in Roman society. The emperor was addressed as dominus and δεσπότης after his reign. Before Diocletian, the emperors were called princeps/πρίγκεψ as a farce that republicanism still existed. Increasingly, the Roman Empire's symbols which replaced SPQR were foremostly the Imperial Eagle which remained unchanged until Emperor Emmanuel II Paleologus added a second head in the 14th century, as well as the Greek letters ΧΡ which represented Christ.
@@locomotivebearingdown5381 Thanks for the information. Maybe in the democracy movements, activists and scholar would have had prefer to resurrect the phrase long out of use, or maybe Ῥώμη would suffice
Rome in this timeline: bruh I eventually become Ottoman.
It wouldn't be far-fetched if the seeds of republicanism and revolution were first sown in Eastern Rome itself, as it was still the direct successor of the old Roman Republic and it's situated in the Greek lands where democracy first proliferated. I think that in the 18th Century there would be Byzantine intellectuals who would have started promoting more a national consciousness based on classical Greece.
I'm seeing you a lot more common now.
Great channel thank you for sharing 🍀☀️🇬🇷🇩🇰☀️
There's no way Byzantium would not be a member of the Axis powers come world war 2. With Revanchism and a renewed interest in combining the Modern with the Classical, Byzantium would become a steadfast ally of Italy, seeking to divide parts of Europe between each other like in the Classical World. Yugoslavia in particular would be invaded.
Maybe there's an ethnic in USA named Byzantine-American if Byzantium never fall
We truly are in the worst timeline
Well I mean no. What if ww3 erupted during cold war and nuclear war happened ? (sure it would have been cool)
@@ivanf.482 not the worst, but a pretty bad one :-(
@@KertPerteson yeah you're right
I would imagine that in these alternative scenarios the Romanov family would not have died as the Roman Republic has always had good relations with Russia it would only be logical that they would grant the Romanovs asylum in Rome in 1917 given that they are the closest to the Russian border.