Ill shoot the elephant in the room: what if the 4th crusade did hit his intended target. But my personal question: is there any information on what would had happend if John IV didnt get blinded by the next emperor? Would he had been a good emperor like his father and grandfather?
@@EasternRomanHistory then the romans would have to face the mongol tidal wave . Remember that the seljuks acted like a meat shield in 1243 , I realy dont know why the mongols under Baiju didnt have any interest on nicea but it seems clear that the romans didn't have the manpower to fight back ... Just my opinion of course , any thoughts on that?
Yarmouk was decisive, although the trouble is what would happen the next time or the time after that. Since the Arabs were still in the height of the spirit of Jihad is seems likely that they would try again and the Romans were still recovering, especially since 641 was such a tumultuous year the Arabs would have been certainly able to exploit Roman weakness as they did in reality. However, Yarmouk as a victory might have allowed the Romans to better organise and fortify Egypt and Anatolia, which would result in the mitgation of territorial losses.
@@EasternRomanHistory what the guy means is what if the arabs could not expand......if they were defeated totally and return in their homes...…..WHAT THEN ? I tell you what then...……………….MUSLIMS WOULD NEVER EXIST TODAY...…...THEY ALL WOULD BE....CHRISTIANS.
@Constitution First How come a dumb emperor survived for 30 long years in the throne of rome in the time of the great barbaric invasions and with numerous usurpers rised against him ? just cause the beep historians named him weak cause he happened to rule in the times of a disaster that don't mean he was really.....weak. as for the chicken he happened to own a chicken named roma. what's your problem with that ? I WAS THERE...………………………………...I KNOW.
@Constitution First Oh...c'mon if they had lost at yarmourk they would have retreated for good in their peninsula. that battle was very decisive for the future of the war. it was in a time when the two empires were weakened by their last war and needed time to heal. the arabs took advantage and beat them both......but if they had lost those critical battles...….(before yarmurk they also won a battle in the summer of 634) their morale would break. after those victories they thought themselves invinsible and won the war. it's the same thing with the punic wars. IF THE ROMANS HAD LOST THE WAR TO HANNIBAL IN THE YEARS 219-202 B.C THEY MAY NEVER HAD CREATED THEIR HUGE EMPIRE...……………..WE MAY HAD A CARTHAGINIAN EMPIRE INSTEAD. those critical battles change the outcome of future events. if hitler had conquered Russia in time he may well be now the master of Europe.
Well, i dont think the empire would have survived if they had repeled the ottomans because the empire was already too much in the grave already at that point. I think the real deal would be to do a what if the sack of constantinople did not happenend or had been avoided
There is perhaps more to be made of the Fourth Crusade than the Fall of Constantinople. I think that although the empire would not break up, it would be very likely that the Roman aristocracy would assassinate Alexios III and replace him with someone else, like with Alexios V. The empire would still be in dire straights fighting the Bulgarians and Turks.
@@EasternRomanHistory Yeah i agree, but we can hope that maybe the crusaders might maybe clear the way to go to egypt i mean IF we take in concern the 4th crusade happenned but they do go in egypt like it was originally planed. But with the roman empire its always the same like when you had bad emperors it get to a decline then you had sucession of good ones it go up then down then up then down etc also i am confident that the romans would have been able to use the mongols invasion of the west and the middle east into their advantage if they still the roman empire and not the nicean one when thoses events happenned, the battle of ankhara, the fall of bagdhad, the declin of the seljuks, or even the defeat of georgia by them ongols twice etc I think that the biggest issues with the Paliologos when they took back constantinople was that 1st Michael VIII focused too much on the west to avoid helping the doukas laskaris which were his enemies because he deposed John IV and the fact that Andronikos II didnt take any advantage into the declin of the seljuks which led to the ottomans to take over
The failure of the Varna Crusaders pretty much sealed the fate of Constantinople. Had the Crusaders won and even managed to kill Sultan Murad, the Ottomans probably would have survived but would have been greatly weakened. Constantine might have been able to secure lasting territorial gains in Thessaly. At any rate, Constantinople and the Turks was like a person who has a python wrapped around his body. At any moment the python could tighten its grip and strangle the person.
By this point its mostly a Zombie Empire, but like he said if another Crusade came there might be a chance, he didn't mentioned the Catalan Company that was very successful at the beginning but things started to sour when (No spoils alert)
The thing is, we already have a historical example of what may have happened if 1453 was a Roman victory. That being the 1422 Siege of Constantinople by the Ottomans. The gist of it being; the Ottomans tried to take the city, they failed, and went on to fight a brief civil war, aswell as dealing with Timur successors. The Crusade of Varna was also launched shortly after this. So here we have a scenario only 20 years before where seemingly everything went right for the Romans. However the Crusade of Varna still failed, the Ottomans were able to crush what was left of Timur's Empire. It only gave the Romans an extra 21 years. I think this shows that it was simply too late for the Empire to be sustainable. I can see them lasting until the year 1500 or so at the latest. One interesting sidenote by the way, that was not mentioned in the video, is that if the Empire didn't fall to the Ottomans in 1453, it would actually have become Catholic. During the siege the two churches formally mended the schism (and Constantine XI himself was actually a Catholic, not Orthodox).
You have a very good point, in fact the siege of 1396-1402 is another example. Defeating the Ottoman sieges gave the Romans a temporary reprieve but as I say in the video the only permanent way that Byzantium could hope to survive would be to relie of Crusades from the West and Turks from the East. Perhaps success in such a heavily western involved defence might encourage further aid, especially if the Eastern European countries were roped into it as well. I feel it would be less certain in the empire would become Catholic. Officially they were but most of the population and clergy were still Orthodox and success against the Ottomans might allow the Romans to drop the Catholic facade. Even so, it depended on the individual. Constantine retained his brother's commitment to union but his other brothers like Thomas was Orthodox in 1453. It is an intersting consideration though, thank you for mentioning it.
In terms of the Empire becoming catholic, I'm very skeptical it would have actually happened. Emperors for hundreds of years claimed they would mend the schism with Rome in exchange for military or political assistance and, even if they were genuine, true reconciliation never happened and issue was never pushed. Alexios I and Manuel Komnenos are the first to come to mind.
The Catholicism was basically just a desperate move for easier diplomacy with the west. I doubt it would have lasted had the empire began a miraculous recovery. If they could reach a point where they are a considerably strong power they probably would drop all pretenses of being Catholic.
The sack of 1204 made clear that the schism of 1054 was very deep.Even if internal rivalries were to be soothened i can't see how Costantinople and eventually ERE would have survived.They were still thinking big living inside their glorious times of the past,but very few left το defend all these.The alternative scenarios are all well explained in your video.Thanks..
Thank you very much. I think there were certainly plenty of opportunites for revival. Andronikos III's accomplishments show that even after civil war and weakened circumstances a future was still to be had for the empire. The real killers for the empire were the unending civil wars and Black Death which stripped the empire of any hope of recovery, in addition the inadequacy of John V Palaiologos as a ruler meant that many opportunites during the latter 14th century were missed due to his incompetence.
@@giannisgiannopoulos791 No problem, in fact its a pleasure. I made my channel because firstly I am very interested in this topic of history and also because no-one else online does it quite as well as I would like it to be. I am not sure if hurt is the right word but I certainly have a rapport with what I read and see.
Interesting video! Just discovered the channel. In my opinion the turning points for the Byzantines were the Catalan revolt and the civil wars of the 1320s. I just did a video about them and during my research I was baffled on how the Byzantines ripped each other apart while Serbia, Bulgaria and the Ottomans all took advantage of the chaos. Imo after these events it was only a matter of time for the city to fall. I’ve always been a fan of Roman and Ottoman history but I’ve never had a opportunity to dive deep into Byzantine history, so I’m very glad that I can do so with your lovely videos. Again great video! :)
Such a great civilization . I Wonder why they where unable to take advantage in the chaos after the battle of ankara 1402 . I belived that was the last chance of the romans.
The Byzantines did take advantage of the Ottoman interregnum but their gains were temporary. Murad II would basically make the Byzantines a tributary state after the 1422 siege. They simply didn’t have the resources to overcome the Ottomans by that point. The only thing going in favor for the Byzantines was that they had Ottoman princes in their court like Mustafa Celebi and Orhan Celebi to threaten the ottoman with. I also believe John V by doing almost nothing during his long reign doomed the Byzantines as well. Sorry for the long comment:)
Thank you very much OHH. If you fancy learning more about the Byzantine Empire i will be happy to help you out, you can contact me here. easternromanhistory@gmail.com The Catalan Revolt was a hughe blunder, you could stretch that to Andronikos II's reign was a blunder. The First Civil war was also a damaging affair as it disrupted Andronikos' designs on conquering Frankish Greece. However, Andronikos III managed to pull the energies of the Empire together and the ravages of the First Civil war were quickly healed. The real killer was in 1341 when Andronikos III died and this was followed by a devastating civil war for 6 years followed almost immediately by the Black Death. The constant civil wars that continued until 1391 destroyed any chance the empire had of recovery from this the way the empire had after the first civil war. The use of Serbs, Bulgarians and Turks as allies was suicidal and often they were more a hinderance than a help.
@@emilioduarte7089 The thing is, they did. They retook their possessions in Thrace and Thessalonika. One issue was that the Roman army was so small and the fisc was so poor large scale conquests were not easily accomplished. Manuel II himself did not return to Constantinople until 1403. He seems to have been to content to play the rivals off against each other and secure the Roman possessions he had just gained, allowing peace to reign.
A very difficult situation for Eastern Rome to come back from, a shame they never let their emperor get possessed by an omniscient Europa Universalis 4 player to help them out of their crisis.
Probably the least talked about alternate history topic among Byzaboos is what if Manuel Komnenos won at Myriokephalon or avoided the Seljuk ambush there. The Komnenian Restoration would have kept up its momentum steadily reclaiming the rest of Anatolia from the Turks, and this might butterfly away the sack of Constantinople
Another factor is that many on the Ottoman side believed that Mehmed was making a mistake in attacking Constantinople. He was at that point just 21 years old and unproven as a leader. If he had failed to take the city and expended an enormous amount of resources, he likely would be very unstable on his throne.
By 1453 the Eastern Roman "Empire" (the Byzantine Empire) had been reduced to a walled ghost town whose defenses were manned by a smattering of European ( _Latin_ ) mercenaries. The Ottomans were a rising power who, had they failed to take the city in 1453, would have tried again and again, and would have inevitably taken it.
But possibly they would have issues with civil wars after all mehmed had more resources to invade maybe some other claimant would say smth god does not mandate him and do some civil war
That depends on the disposition of the nearby nations. Historically, the Hungarians has been mauled in the Crusade of Varna. A delay of that Kwangtung can carry well bring about a renewed vigour by Hungary, the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, and others to see a rather different outcome this go around. Such an emeritus would have the support of both the Venetians and the Genoese. It also should be noted that support from other powers, such as Karaman. Then through in leaders who saw success fighting the Ottomans, such as Stephen the Great of Wallachia and Skanderbeg. Then comes notables, such as Serbia, as they can deal more secure now offering direct aid in the fight against the ottomans, should such a defeat occur.
Thank you very much. Instead of doing what some alternate history people do which is descend into the realms of fantasy, I sought to simply answer the question posed in as full a detail as possible. Should I do more what if questions I will answer them in a similar fashion. Thank you very much.
In my opinion if the Romans were the victors they would've joined forces with Morea and Georgios Kastriotis. That could mean that they would most likely kick the Ottomans out
I believe the true turning point in byzantine history was the revolt against Emperor Maurice in 602. He managed to conquer the Balkans and actually made peace with the Persians after helping King Kashrow II gain the throne. But he pissed of the army and got killed along with his entire family. The death of Maurice directly led to the Persians declaring war, begining a 26 year long war that left both empires in ruin. With both empires very alives and as allies, the muslim conquest would have been avoided, the romans would have remained in control of Egypt and Africa, hence controling the Eastern Medierranean. The Persians would become allies (most likely just temporarily), so the Empire could finally consolidate its power in the West. They could (eventually) defeat the Lombards on Italy just as Charlemagne did in our timeline. The Roman Empire would maintain a size kinda similar to AD 555 for a long time. Anyways, any empire falls eventually. I imagine the byzantines losing all of Africa to Great Britain and France (like the Ottoman Empire), and its possible that the Empire just declines at the start of the Modern Era. But its true that, if the Empire remains as a superpower in Europe, all of history would be completly different. No Papal States, no Holy Roman Empire, no Napoleon, no Spain as we know it. Also, the Empire wouldn't have replaced Latin with Greek, and its likely that the term "Byzantine Empire" never appears, so it would be just called Roman Empire. In short: the best possible timeline. What do you think?
Later asumptions are always difficult to make as by that point so much would have changed but i do agree that the death of Maurice was a turning point and is usually seen as the end of the Late Roman Empire and beginning of the Byzantine Empire with the Islamic conquests. The total war may not have been as bad but by poor coincidence Islam took off just as it ended.
@@EasternRomanHistory essentially its having a bunch of veteran religious zealots coming out of nowhere attacking you while you just had one very bloody war
I think a better question would be what if the Fourth Crusaders hadn’t diverted from Egypt and successfully reached it, thus leaving Eastern Rome in tact
Certainly a topic to consider in a future What if? In my video about the empire's fragmentation before 1203 I speculated that the empire, although in decline and bits flying off of it. A strong emperor might be able to save the situation just as Theodore I and John III did for the empire of Nicaea.
If they had survived they’re best bet would to have fortified the crap out of the Greek holdings. if they had modernized the fortifications and probably would of been smarter to have another secondary capital set in Greece that had up to date cannon ready walls. Something to fall back on in Greece and they could of remained more like vassals and had a similar set up to the Romanian principalities. That in my opinion been there most likely way to survive.
What if the rebellious general George Maniakes was victorious in his final battle against the emperor's troops? Would he perhaps join the list of great Eastern Roman soldier-emperors? Regarded as the best general of his generation, under his leadership part of Sicily was reconquered before being relieved of his command, and he had been able to resist the Normans and drive them out of Apulia before being recalled once more. Furious, he rallied every soldier from Italy to Thrace to his cause, and would win every engagement he fought in until he got stabbed near Thessalonika.
George Maniakes had essentially won the battle against Constantine IX. It is only because he was killed that his expedition failed. If he did become emperor it is likely he would have reversed all of the abuses and power of the bureaurocracy before it could leave permenent damage. A strong military presence would likely lead to the empire's much better direction and leadership against the Pechenegs, Turks and Normans and he may have even succeeded in founding his own dynasty or at least be replaced by another member of the dynastoi. It is also likely the Theme System would not decay in quite the same way that it did.
The fall came on 29th of May, Tuesday-and that's why Tuesday is the equivalent of Friday for Greeks, e.g. Tuesday and 13th... The answer of the emperor Konstantine IA' Palaiologos, on the 22nd of May asking for surrender by the Turks, is following the spirit of Thermopylae!
@@alessandrogini5283 as long as an Ottoman state completely surrounds Constantinople, the fall of the city is inevitable. It's like having a python wrapped around your body. At any moment it can tighten its grip and crush you.
@@fridayyy.2102 well, there was the Varna Crusade of 1444, which failed. The disadvantage for Christian armies is that they are far from home, lack unity of command.
Thanks for posting the video, It started very engagingly, unfortunately the background music that came in scrambled my brain rather, so I wasn't able to take in any more from that point. I like the pictures.
then 1454 :p ( I am greek) black houmor...I wish there was hope for continuity, especially with the last worthy emperor ... unfortunately, the previous ones were smaller than him and the empire itself was shrinking. probably if the last emperor was in power a hundred years earlier, something would have happened but the empire had essentially been lost long ago
I think you would have to go back as far as the Battle of Manzikert. Had the Romans won, I think it would’ve probably prevented the following civil war. There are several factors that contributed here, not just Romanos’ civil war but also events like the Bulgarian Uprising and The Fourth Crusade. But for the sake of this argument, it was the events at Manzikert that contributed most to the Empire’s end.
Very interesting, and I love your videos. Although this video reminds me of a saying from my dad: "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts it would be Christmas all year long!"
@@fridayyy.2102 Nothing it’s eternal…Besides, Romans without the Greeks to civilize them where to be nothing, and the world still was to be in the dark ages.
I feel like if they somehow "won" the siege, the Ottomans can always regroup and try again next time. The Romans were pretty much a spent force by then, it's kind of a miracle they lasted as long as they did in our timeline after the 4th Crusade especially.
This is an interesting view since the Byzantines were already weak at this point The Ottomans would still be a formidable force There is an alternate history webnovel that deals with this, it's called-"1453:Revival of Byzantium" I encourage you to read it
If you want the Eastern Romans to survive, you would need to go back further. 1453 was too late. For the Byzantines to have a chance, you would need to go back at least four hundred years earlier and reverse their defeat at Manzikert as well as preventing the crusader sack and occupation of Constantinople in 1204 and the subsequent partition of the eastern Roman empire by the crusaders.
You call them, Romans, Byzantines, but they were Greeks. Greeks through centuries had to fight from all directions E, N, S and W. Plus the Greeks were fighting themselves too. They were calling themselves Romans just to project prestige as the rightful Heir‘s of the Roman empire, which disintegrated early in the fifth century. Greeks managed to civilize the Romans, but the Ottomans drag them back. The Ottoman empire was barbaric and blood thirsty. Now if Europe was not fighting each other, and Pope from Rome was not antagonizing with the Patriarch of Constantinople, the world today could’ve been colonizing the planets, 1000 years ahead. Your speculation have no value whatsoever, especially when you twisting actual facts…
Again Koraes' careful rhetoric, which matches his self-projection, seems to be in play; his classifications of“Greek slavery under the Romans” and “Greek slavery under the Ottomans” are closely linked a few lines below: Modern Greeks could justifiably boast more than Plutarch's contemporaries, when freed from the yoke of the savage tyrant, compared to which the Roman yoke could rightly be considered a luxury, and after they gain their freedom, they are willing to maintain it...16 Xenophontos, S., 2019. Brill's companion to the reception of Plutarch. Leiden: Brill, p.551. The whole of Greece was under foreign rule for many centuries,starting with the Roman conquest in the second century BC. What distinguishes the Ionian Islands from the rest of Greece is that, with some exceptions, they did not form part of the Ottoman Empire, while the rest of the Greek world was under Ottoman rule for anything between two hundred and five hundred years. The fact that these islands were ruled by Catholics rather than Muslims has made them strikingly different from the rest of Greece, in language, music, costume, cuisine and architecture. Hirst, A. and Sammon, P., 2014. The Ionian Islands. p.2. Au contraire , with the introduction of Christianity the Greeks of old Hellas , who in part had remained heathen , ranked as second - class citizens ; with the introduction of Christianity the Greeks of old Hellas , who in part had remained heathen , ranked as second - class citizens ; the word “ Hellene " in Byzantium had meant the same as " barbarian " since the third century . The representatives of Byzantium who spoke koine and who called themselves Rhomaioi ( " Romans ' , i.e. ' East Romans ' and not Greeks ), did not bother very much about the rural Greek-speaking popu-lation of Old Hellas, who spoke a tongue drawn from the dialects and sharply diverging from the high reputation of the koine. Décsy, G. (2000) The linguistic identity of Europe. Bloomington, IN: Eurolingua. p..203
In my opinion, the point of no return for the Romans was the Palaiologan civil wars of the 1340's, 1350's, and 1370's during the reign of John V. It blows my mind how destructive that era was with massive territorial losses to Serbia and the Ottomans. The Romans were left with the rump states of just Constantinople and Morea afterwards. I think it was only after the dust of the wars had settled, after Manuel II ascended the throne, that the Romans realised too late the mortal situation they'd put themselves in. After that, it was only a matter of time until Romania fell for good.
Although 1204 effectively ended the Empire as it was, it did stop the eastern crusaders which always led to ravaged Byzantine provinces (by “chivalrous knights” and a huge drain on the economy having to host and transport these trigger happy Latins who would always bleed everything they could out of Byzantium the took provinces form them yet always 100% blame them for every shortcoming each crusade had, which in turn made all the burden of supporting the crusaders work against them as they’d be treated like Muslims. Byzantium was always the crusader scapegoat and as long as crusades happened, the more anti greek propaganda was spread.
Brilliant intro! But to be real I do believe one account need to be taken into acount here. The fact that the Byzantines were pretty much broke by the siege of 1453, which is alao why they could not afford Orbans throne. I do agree that releasing Orhan would be effective abd cause a civil war as you sugest. But I am not sure if a reconquest would be possible without external help. So I think atleast they would have help with reconquering territories with help, possibly from the veneztians. I am not so sure if they could have done this on their own
All things being as they were, if Mehmet hadn't conquered it in 1453, he'd likely have returned at a later date. And beyond that if not Mehmet then some other Sultan would have taken it. The eastern empire was done for, and wasn't coming back.
Either their fall to the Ottomans is just delayed for a couple decades or the Romans survive all the way up to the modern day and become a city state sort of like Andorra or San Marino
Dident Mehemet say that ether i conquer Constantinople or Constantinople conquers me he was under the threat about a revolt due to people thinking he was weak if he failed i definetly belived he would have ether died during the siege because if he returned back he would have been assasinated or revolt
Demetrius Palaiologos since he is somewhat unloyal,he should be eradicated by Constantine XI and put Thomas on the Despotate of Morea,Morea would be a back-up base for the Byzantines if in case the Capital is lost
I think the fall of the Byzantine Empire and Constantinople was never a question of when, but if. Whether it happened in 1453 or a decade later, the result would still be the same…Turkish rule. The Byzantine Empire was but a pale shadow of its former self….reduced to mere remnants. They called themselves Romans, though in reality they stopped being trueRomans long ago, in some ways, the Turkish conquest was good for the city, as it stopped its decline from turning into a ghost town, to once again becoming a thriving centre of culture and commerce. The initial conquest of the city and treatment of its Greek population was quite brutal though.😊
See I think a better scenario is what if Constantine 11th would have surrender Constantinople to the Turks and became a warlord state in the Peloponnese. I heard this was an option. There they could have built strength giving the area in our time was loosely governed by the Turks. Who knows how long the ERE would have hung on and maybe strengthen in this state.
The big question, that I can't believe you didn't explore, is what would happen with the empire after the discovery of the Americas less than 50 years later! Would they be able to establish their own colony and how we uld that effect them? Would the waning power of places like venice be a boon to Byzantium? Would the Renaissance have occurred in the same way if the Byzantine empire had not fallen? THOSE are the questions I'd like some insight on. 🙂
With American colonisation, it's highly unlikely. Issue was that, like the Ottomans in reality, Eastern Rome was situated and locked in the Eastern Med and so wouldn't be properly able to access and travel across the Atlantic. I think the Renaissance would have occured more or less the same way. Greek scholars had already being fleeing to the west following the Fourth Crusade and the Venetian holdings in the Aegean also contributed to West- East cultural diffusions of classical knowledge.
Nowdays Turkey is stil a way less developed than the rests of greek Constantinople - impressive walls stand against dirty and skiny horses walking arround, small houses constructed very close to each other etc.
As a fans of Roman/Byzantine Empire, I have to say, since 1204 Romans lost the chance to revive; but what directly leads to its demise? It’s the civil war between John V and John VI
Again Koraes' careful rhetoric, which matches his self-projection, seems to be in play; his classifications of“Greek slavery under the Romans” and “Greek slavery under the Ottomans” are closely linked a few lines below: Modern Greeks could justifiably boast more than Plutarch's contemporaries, when freed from the yoke of the savage tyrant, compared to which the Roman yoke could rightly be considered a luxury, and after they gain their freedom, they are willing to maintain it...16 Xenophontos, S., 2019. Brill's companion to the reception of Plutarch. Leiden: Brill, p.551. The whole of Greece was under foreign rule for many centuries,starting with the Roman conquest in the second century BC. What distinguishes the Ionian Islands from the rest of Greece is that, with some exceptions, they did not form part of the Ottoman Empire, while the rest of the Greek world was under Ottoman rule for anything between two hundred and five hundred years. The fact that these islands were ruled by Catholics rather than Muslims has made them strikingly different from the rest of Greece, in language, music, costume, cuisine and architecture. Hirst, A. and Sammon, P., 2014. The Ionian Islands. p.2. Au contraire , with the introduction of Christianity the Greeks of old Hellas , who in part had remained heathen , ranked as second - class citizens ; with the introduction of Christianity the Greeks of old Hellas , who in part had remained heathen , ranked as second - class citizens ; the word “ Hellene " in Byzantium had meant the same as " barbarian " since the third century . The representatives of Byzantium who spoke koine and who called themselves Rhomaioi ( " Romans ' , i.e. ' East Romans ' and not Greeks ), did not bother very much about the rural Greek-speaking popu-lation of Old Hellas, who spoke a tongue drawn from the dialects and sharply diverging from the high reputation of the koine. Décsy, G. (2000) The linguistic identity of Europe. Bloomington, IN: Eurolingua. p..203
so much to do , sou little resources . I blame John V Palaiologos for allowing the turks to established themselves on gallipoli in exchange for their support in the ongoing civil war , such a lack of good judgment ( of course the earthquake was not his fault ) . would you considered to cover the catalan company and the most unlucky ruler Michael IX Palaiologos ? such a tragic rule for the romans
It was Andronikos Iv that handed Gallipoli over to the Ottomans but you are right the weakness and disspirited rule of John V was deadly. The successes of Manuel II just goes to show what John V could have accomplished if someone other than John V was emperor. Of Course I will cover the Catalan Company, probably when I cover the reigns of Andronikos II and Michael IX.
@@EasternRomanHistory I have the strong impression that Katakouzinos was responsible for the Gallipoli thing and in general for using them as mercenaries in the civil war.
Their always a next ottoman sultan to seige the constantinopolis.If mehmed failed in his first seige, he would come second time, 3rd time, 4rth time.If he failed, then his sons would come. May be 1453 would occur in 1553.
I love thinking about 'what if' scenarios, it seems like the Romans were in deep-shit even if they survived the siege. Can't see how they would've managed. What if they had won the battle of Manzikert, then I can see the Empire surviving till today :)
Indeed, the situation in 1453 was dire and it was the reign of mehmed Ii that really cemented Ottoman power in the region. The Crusade of Narna in 1444 was there last real chance of really turning the tide but it could be argued that after the Second Palaiologan Civil war, the Empire was irrevokably doomed. Irronically even if the Eastern Romans had still ost Manzikert, had the civil war afterward not happened or the government put up any kind of resistance to the Turks, then the situation would probably have been completely different.
They literally have everything to with the Roman empire 💀 Which language was dominant in the Eastern Roman empire? Greek. What about ethnicity/culture? Greek. What about religion? Greek Orthodoxy. It's pretty telling how the Greek the Romans were when the Greeks of Istanbul are still called "Rum"
@@i_likemen5614 Again Koraes' careful rhetoric, which matches his self-projection, seems to be in play; his classifications of“Greek slavery under the Romans” and “Greek slavery under the Ottomans” are closely linked a few lines below: Modern Greeks could justifiably boast more than Plutarch's contemporaries, when freed from the yoke of the savage tyrant, compared to which the Roman yoke could rightly be considered a luxury, and after they gain their freedom, they are willing to maintain it...16 Xenophontos, S., 2019. Brill's companion to the reception of Plutarch. Leiden: Brill, p.551. The whole of Greece was under foreign rule for many centuries,starting with the Roman conquest in the second century BC. What distinguishes the Ionian Islands from the rest of Greece is that, with some exceptions, they did not form part of the Ottoman Empire, while the rest of the Greek world was under Ottoman rule for anything between two hundred and five hundred years. The fact that these islands were ruled by Catholics rather than Muslims has made them strikingly different from the rest of Greece, in language, music, costume, cuisine and architecture. Hirst, A. and Sammon, P., 2014. The Ionian Islands. p.2. Au contraire , with the introduction of Christianity the Greeks of old Hellas , who in part had remained heathen , ranked as second - class citizens ; with the introduction of Christianity the Greeks of old Hellas , who in part had remained heathen , ranked as second - class citizens ; the word “ Hellene " in Byzantium had meant the same as " barbarian " since the third century . The representatives of Byzantium who spoke koine and who called themselves Rhomaioi ( " Romans ' , i.e. ' East Romans ' and not Greeks ), did not bother very much about the rural Greek-speaking popu-lation of Old Hellas, who spoke a tongue drawn from the dialects and sharply diverging from the high reputation of the koine. Décsy, G. (2000) The linguistic identity of Europe. Bloomington, IN: Eurolingua. p..203
@@papazataklaattiranimam Koine is Greek LMAO. Most Greeks nowadays can still understand it. And sure, modern Hellenic identity is fairly new, but it doesn't change the fact that it is still closely associated with the "Rhomaioi" identity, and a successor to that. Your other points don't even prove that Greeks had nothing to do with Rome. Rome enslaved everybody (as well as Ottomans) but the difference is how much they used Greek culture for their empire.
@@EasternRomanHistory But we don't know what exactly you mean! If the Byzantines were literally Romans(which means Latins) then today in Greece we should speak italian(or another romance language) and also, we would possibly be catholic and not orthodox but unlike other european nations, we were not latinized in any aspect. Everyone knows that the greek language was the official one of the Eastern "Roman" empire and that the Byzantines spoke and wrote in greek. There are no byzantine texts in latin but only in greek despite that they kept the "Roman" identity for political reasons. Directly or indirectly, the Eastern "Roman" empire was actually the continuation of the old Hellenistic empire culturally and linguistically. Also, Justinian was the last latin-speaking emperor of the Eastern "Roman" empire and he ruled during the 6th century AD which means 9 centuries before the fall of Constantinople! You call them "Romans" but we are the descendants of those people. So, are we Romans too??? Of course not because we are Greeks, not Latins. Therefore, the Byzantines were ethnically Greeks, not Romans.
Erdogan is the name of the military technician who built the formidable bronze canon, the sole that could destroy the invincible fortifications of Constantinople in 1453.
1492 might never have happened, as with the fall of Constantinople, there was pressure on the West to find a new trade route to India. Thus, no America.
I am greek..nothing would had happened if Vizantines had won the Ottomans.Vizantines would had fallen from another sieges,if no ottomans, from another empires.
I am stunned no one here mentions the WHAT IF question of the most important battle in the history of the roman empire. the battle which was the final straw FOR THE DOWNFALL OF THE WESTERN PART OF THE UNITED ROMAN EMPIRE IN 476 AD TO THE BARBARIANS...………. THE BATTLE OF MERCURIUM IN 468 AD WHEN THE UNITED ROMAN EMPIRE OF EAST AND WEST DEFEATED THE VANDALS IN SICILY AND IN NORTH AFRICA (west of carthage) AND THE ONLY THING THE COMMANDER OF THE NAVY BASILISCUS HAD TO DO WAS TO ORDER HIS FLEET TO MARTCH FROM THE MERCURIUM AND CAPTURE CARTHAGE …………….BUT THAT FUCKING BASTARD IDIOT EITHER CAUSE HE WAS BRIBED BY GEISERIC.....OR CAUSE HE WAS A TRAITOR HE ORDERED HIS FLEET TO DO NOTHING...…..HIS CHANCE TO WIN WAS GONE AND GEISERIC FOUND THE TIME TO SEND FIRE SHIPS AND WON THE DAY FOR HIS KINGDOM THUS IN EFFECT DESTROYING THE LAST HOPE FOR ROME TO REMAIN THE ACTUAL MASTER OF THE WESTERN WORLD BY THE END OF THE 5TH CENTURY AD. FUCKING BEEP TRAITORS...…………...RICIMER...….ASPAR......BASILISCUS...…...AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH COINTILIUS VARUS...………………………..WHERE ARE MY EAGLES DAMN IT ? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
They wouldn't have lasted much longer... The Eastern Roman Empire was bankrupt. I think there may have been deeper union with the Catholics which may have encouraged them to defend Constantinople from future invasion. It would be sweet if we still had the Romans today, but I guess they wouldn't still be called the Eastern Roman Empire.
It would have still fell at a later time. The Byzantine Empire was weak and did not have the men or firepower to hold them off again. The West's will to defend the East was just not there either.
Till this very day Rome is still alive and well from China 2 Australia 2 Ireland 2 Russia and back 2 England and Japan and Mexico and all smaller regions and America.
not really much the ottoman would have regrouped and came back until such time as they could captured it the byzantine empire was a basket case by this stage it was entierly in debt to west and lacked any real territory. the ottoman had already survived a civil war and the ravages of tamerlene and was able to rebound. the ottomans would have proabbly created a bigger army and navy and invested even more on artilery before retuning.
Come on, stupid venice survived up until napoleon. Gun powder era sieges became costly later and starfish-like walls made defending cities and fortresses for a long time (years) doable. See Mata vs Ottomans, the siege Of Ostende by the Spanish, the siege of Antwerpen etc. Ottomans couldn't even take Rhodes from the knights easily. Had Constantinople mimic the Italian city-states it may have survived.
What other what ifs from Eastern Roman History would be interesting to ask?
Ill shoot the elephant in the room: what if the 4th crusade did hit his intended target.
But my personal question: is there any information on what would had happend if John IV didnt get blinded by the next emperor? Would he had been a good emperor like his father and grandfather?
What if manzikert never happend
@@rezak2 Probably the Romans would have had control over Anatolia.
@@EasternRomanHistory then the romans would have to face the mongol tidal wave . Remember that the seljuks acted like a meat shield in 1243 , I realy dont know why the mongols under Baiju didnt have any interest on nicea but it seems clear that the romans didn't have the manpower to fight back ... Just my opinion of course , any thoughts on that?
What if the rebellion led by the pretender Phocas in 602 CE had failed?
What if the Romans won the Battle of Yarmouk? Now this would be a close to perfect timeline.
Yarmouk was decisive, although the trouble is what would happen the next time or the time after that. Since the Arabs were still in the height of the spirit of Jihad is seems likely that they would try again and the Romans were still recovering, especially since 641 was such a tumultuous year the Arabs would have been certainly able to exploit Roman weakness as they did in reality. However, Yarmouk as a victory might have allowed the Romans to better organise and fortify Egypt and Anatolia, which would result in the mitgation of territorial losses.
@@EasternRomanHistory what the guy means is what if the arabs could not expand......if they were defeated totally and return in their homes...…..WHAT THEN ?
I tell you what then...……………….MUSLIMS WOULD NEVER EXIST TODAY...…...THEY ALL WOULD BE....CHRISTIANS.
@@flaviushonoriusemperorofro3903 Turks are not Arabs
@Constitution First How come a dumb emperor survived for 30 long years in the throne of rome in the time of the great barbaric invasions and with numerous usurpers rised against him ?
just cause the beep historians named him weak cause he happened to rule in the times of a disaster that don't mean he was really.....weak.
as for the chicken he happened to own a chicken named roma. what's your problem with that ?
I WAS THERE...………………………………...I KNOW.
@Constitution First Oh...c'mon if they had lost at yarmourk they would have retreated for good in their peninsula. that battle was very decisive for the future of the war. it was in a time when the two empires were weakened by their last war and needed time to heal. the arabs took advantage and beat them both......but if they had lost those critical battles...….(before yarmurk they also won a battle in the summer of 634) their morale would break. after those victories they thought themselves invinsible and won the war.
it's the same thing with the punic wars. IF THE ROMANS HAD LOST THE WAR TO HANNIBAL IN THE YEARS 219-202 B.C THEY MAY NEVER HAD CREATED THEIR HUGE EMPIRE...……………..WE MAY HAD A CARTHAGINIAN EMPIRE INSTEAD.
those critical battles change the outcome of future events.
if hitler had conquered Russia in time he may well be now the master of Europe.
Well, i dont think the empire would have survived if they had repeled the ottomans because the empire was already too much in the grave already at that point. I think the real deal would be to do a what if the sack of constantinople did not happenend or had been avoided
There is perhaps more to be made of the Fourth Crusade than the Fall of Constantinople. I think that although the empire would not break up, it would be very likely that the Roman aristocracy would assassinate Alexios III and replace him with someone else, like with Alexios V. The empire would still be in dire straights fighting the Bulgarians and Turks.
@@EasternRomanHistory Yeah i agree, but we can hope that maybe the crusaders might maybe clear the way to go to egypt i mean IF we take in concern the 4th crusade happenned but they do go in egypt like it was originally planed. But with the roman empire its always the same like when you had bad emperors it get to a decline then you had sucession of good ones it go up then down then up then down etc also i am confident that the romans would have been able to use the mongols invasion of the west and the middle east into their advantage if they still the roman empire and not the nicean one when thoses events happenned, the battle of ankhara, the fall of bagdhad, the declin of the seljuks, or even the defeat of georgia by them ongols twice etc
I think that the biggest issues with the Paliologos when they took back constantinople was that 1st Michael VIII focused too much on the west to avoid helping the doukas laskaris which were his enemies because he deposed John IV and the fact that Andronikos II didnt take any advantage into the declin of the seljuks which led to the ottomans to take over
@@EasternRomanHistory what if hellenism survived like Zoroastrism
The failure of the Varna Crusaders pretty much sealed the fate of Constantinople. Had the Crusaders won and even managed to kill Sultan Murad, the Ottomans probably would have survived but would have been greatly weakened. Constantine might have been able to secure lasting territorial gains in Thessaly.
At any rate, Constantinople and the Turks was like a person who has a python wrapped around his body. At any moment the python could tighten its grip and strangle the person.
By this point its mostly a Zombie Empire, but like he said if another Crusade came there might be a chance, he didn't mentioned the Catalan Company that was very successful at the beginning but things started to sour when (No spoils alert)
The thing is, we already have a historical example of what may have happened if 1453 was a Roman victory. That being the 1422 Siege of Constantinople by the Ottomans. The gist of it being; the Ottomans tried to take the city, they failed, and went on to fight a brief civil war, aswell as dealing with Timur successors.
The Crusade of Varna was also launched shortly after this.
So here we have a scenario only 20 years before where seemingly everything went right for the Romans.
However the Crusade of Varna still failed, the Ottomans were able to crush what was left of Timur's Empire. It only gave the Romans an extra 21 years.
I think this shows that it was simply too late for the Empire to be sustainable. I can see them lasting until the year 1500 or so at the latest.
One interesting sidenote by the way, that was not mentioned in the video, is that if the Empire didn't fall to the Ottomans in 1453, it would actually have become Catholic. During the siege the two churches formally mended the schism (and Constantine XI himself was actually a Catholic, not Orthodox).
You have a very good point, in fact the siege of 1396-1402 is another example. Defeating the Ottoman sieges gave the Romans a temporary reprieve but as I say in the video the only permanent way that Byzantium could hope to survive would be to relie of Crusades from the West and Turks from the East. Perhaps success in such a heavily western involved defence might encourage further aid, especially if the Eastern European countries were roped into it as well.
I feel it would be less certain in the empire would become Catholic. Officially they were but most of the population and clergy were still Orthodox and success against the Ottomans might allow the Romans to drop the Catholic facade. Even so, it depended on the individual. Constantine retained his brother's commitment to union but his other brothers like Thomas was Orthodox in 1453. It is an intersting consideration though, thank you for mentioning it.
In terms of the Empire becoming catholic, I'm very skeptical it would have actually happened. Emperors for hundreds of years claimed they would mend the schism with Rome in exchange for military or political assistance and, even if they were genuine, true reconciliation never happened and issue was never pushed. Alexios I and Manuel Komnenos are the first to come to mind.
The Catholicism was basically just a desperate move for easier diplomacy with the west. I doubt it would have lasted had the empire began a miraculous recovery. If they could reach a point where they are a considerably strong power they probably would drop all pretenses of being Catholic.
The sack of 1204 made clear that the schism of 1054 was very deep.Even if internal rivalries were to be soothened i can't see how Costantinople and eventually ERE would have survived.They were still thinking big living inside their glorious times of the past,but very few left το defend all these.The alternative scenarios are all well explained in your video.Thanks..
Thank you very much. I think there were certainly plenty of opportunites for revival. Andronikos III's accomplishments show that even after civil war and weakened circumstances a future was still to be had for the empire. The real killers for the empire were the unending civil wars and Black Death which stripped the empire of any hope of recovery, in addition the inadequacy of John V Palaiologos as a ruler meant that many opportunites during the latter 14th century were missed due to his incompetence.
@@giannisgiannopoulos791 No problem, in fact its a pleasure. I made my channel because firstly I am very interested in this topic of history and also because no-one else online does it quite as well as I would like it to be. I am not sure if hurt is the right word but I certainly have a rapport with what I read and see.
Interesting video! Just discovered the channel. In my opinion the turning points for the Byzantines were the Catalan revolt and the civil wars of the 1320s. I just did a video about them and during my research I was baffled on how the Byzantines ripped each other apart while Serbia, Bulgaria and the Ottomans all took advantage of the chaos. Imo after these events it was only a matter of time for the city to fall.
I’ve always been a fan of Roman and Ottoman history but I’ve never had a opportunity to dive deep into Byzantine history, so I’m very glad that I can do so with your lovely videos. Again great video! :)
Such a great civilization . I Wonder why they where unable to take advantage in the chaos after the battle of ankara 1402 . I belived that was the last chance of the romans.
The Byzantines did take advantage of the Ottoman interregnum but their gains were temporary. Murad II would basically make the Byzantines a tributary state after the 1422 siege. They simply didn’t have the resources to overcome the Ottomans by that point. The only thing going in favor for the Byzantines was that they had Ottoman princes in their court like Mustafa Celebi and Orhan Celebi to threaten the ottoman with. I also believe John V by doing almost nothing during his long reign doomed the Byzantines as well.
Sorry for the long comment:)
Thank you very much OHH. If you fancy learning more about the Byzantine Empire i will be happy to help you out, you can contact me here. easternromanhistory@gmail.com
The Catalan Revolt was a hughe blunder, you could stretch that to Andronikos II's reign was a blunder. The First Civil war was also a damaging affair as it disrupted Andronikos' designs on conquering Frankish Greece. However, Andronikos III managed to pull the energies of the Empire together and the ravages of the First Civil war were quickly healed. The real killer was in 1341 when Andronikos III died and this was followed by a devastating civil war for 6 years followed almost immediately by the Black Death. The constant civil wars that continued until 1391 destroyed any chance the empire had of recovery from this the way the empire had after the first civil war. The use of Serbs, Bulgarians and Turks as allies was suicidal and often they were more a hinderance than a help.
@@emilioduarte7089 The thing is, they did. They retook their possessions in Thrace and Thessalonika. One issue was that the Roman army was so small and the fisc was so poor large scale conquests were not easily accomplished. Manuel II himself did not return to Constantinople until 1403. He seems to have been to content to play the rivals off against each other and secure the Roman possessions he had just gained, allowing peace to reign.
@@EasternRomanHistory for real . Manuel was such a good leader. Only if he had reign 1 century early
A very difficult situation for Eastern Rome to come back from, a shame they never let their emperor get possessed by an omniscient Europa Universalis 4 player to help them out of their crisis.
This is an accurate account of the dire situation of the Empire during its last moments. Nice video once again!
Thank you
Probably the least talked about alternate history topic among Byzaboos is what if Manuel Komnenos won at Myriokephalon or avoided the Seljuk ambush there. The Komnenian Restoration would have kept up its momentum steadily reclaiming the rest of Anatolia from the Turks, and this might butterfly away the sack of Constantinople
Another factor is that many on the Ottoman side believed that Mehmed was making a mistake in attacking Constantinople. He was at that point just 21 years old and unproven as a leader. If he had failed to take the city and expended an enormous amount of resources, he likely would be very unstable on his throne.
By 1453 the Eastern Roman "Empire" (the Byzantine Empire) had been reduced to a walled ghost town whose defenses were manned by a smattering of European ( _Latin_ ) mercenaries.
The Ottomans were a rising power who, had they failed to take the city in 1453, would have tried again and again, and would have inevitably taken it.
But possibly they would have issues with civil wars after all mehmed had more resources to invade maybe some other claimant would say smth god does not mandate him and do some civil war
That gag at the beginning was classic 😂.
If the Romans survived in 1453, they would've fallen a decade or so later whenever the Ottomans decide to try again.
Certainly possible
That depends on the disposition of the nearby nations. Historically, the Hungarians has been mauled in the Crusade of Varna.
A delay of that Kwangtung can carry well bring about a renewed vigour by Hungary, the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, and others to see a rather different outcome this go around. Such an emeritus would have the support of both the Venetians and the Genoese. It also should be noted that support from other powers, such as Karaman.
Then through in leaders who saw success fighting the Ottomans, such as Stephen the Great of Wallachia and Skanderbeg.
Then comes notables, such as Serbia, as they can deal more secure now offering direct aid in the fight against the ottomans, should such a defeat occur.
What if they survived the next one
@@colonolinthemornig true, lets remember Constantinople faced multiple siege in its history and even bombards were not a decisive blow
@@EasternRomanHistory wrong if mehmed 2nd failed the ottoman would dethrone him leading to new cvil war
ASTONISHING!!
Such a total analysis. You've covered the matter from literally every aspect. Incredible work ❤
Thank you very much. Instead of doing what some alternate history people do which is descend into the realms of fantasy, I sought to simply answer the question posed in as full a detail as possible. Should I do more what if questions I will answer them in a similar fashion. Thank you very much.
The consummate detail of events is amazing. Thank you.
In my opinion if the Romans were the victors they would've joined forces with Morea and Georgios Kastriotis. That could mean that they would most likely kick the Ottomans out
@@freddo_cappuccino2695 im the most anti- Albanian nationalism person you will meet, i literally consider Georgios Kastriotis to be a Greek
I believe the true turning point in byzantine history was the revolt against Emperor Maurice in 602. He managed to conquer the Balkans and actually made peace with the Persians after helping King Kashrow II gain the throne. But he pissed of the army and got killed along with his entire family. The death of Maurice directly led to the Persians declaring war, begining a 26 year long war that left both empires in ruin.
With both empires very alives and as allies, the muslim conquest would have been avoided, the romans would have remained in control of Egypt and Africa, hence controling the Eastern Medierranean. The Persians would become allies (most likely just temporarily), so the Empire could finally consolidate its power in the West. They could (eventually) defeat the Lombards on Italy just as Charlemagne did in our timeline. The Roman Empire would maintain a size kinda similar to AD 555 for a long time.
Anyways, any empire falls eventually. I imagine the byzantines losing all of Africa to Great Britain and France (like the Ottoman Empire), and its possible that the Empire just declines at the start of the Modern Era. But its true that, if the Empire remains as a superpower in Europe, all of history would be completly different. No Papal States, no Holy Roman Empire, no Napoleon, no Spain as we know it. Also, the Empire wouldn't have replaced Latin with Greek, and its likely that the term "Byzantine Empire" never appears, so it would be just called Roman Empire. In short: the best possible timeline.
What do you think?
Later asumptions are always difficult to make as by that point so much would have changed but i do agree that the death of Maurice was a turning point and is usually seen as the end of the Late Roman Empire and beginning of the Byzantine Empire with the Islamic conquests. The total war may not have been as bad but by poor coincidence Islam took off just as it ended.
@@EasternRomanHistory essentially its having a bunch of veteran religious zealots coming out of nowhere attacking you while you just had one very bloody war
I think a better question would be what if the Fourth Crusaders hadn’t diverted from Egypt and successfully reached it, thus leaving Eastern Rome in tact
Certainly a topic to consider in a future What if? In my video about the empire's fragmentation before 1203 I speculated that the empire, although in decline and bits flying off of it. A strong emperor might be able to save the situation just as Theodore I and John III did for the empire of Nicaea.
Nicely done
Thanks
What if romans won the Battle of manikert
Mazikert? No civil war , the turks would pay tribute to romanus. I gues
The sad truth is that Manzikert was totally winnable had the Byzantines united.
If they had survived they’re best bet would to have fortified the crap out of the Greek holdings. if they had modernized the fortifications and probably would of been smarter to have another secondary capital set in Greece that had up to date cannon ready walls. Something to fall back on in Greece and they could of remained more like vassals and had a similar set up to the Romanian principalities. That in my opinion been there most likely way to survive.
What if the rebellious general George Maniakes was victorious in his final battle against the emperor's troops? Would he perhaps join the list of great Eastern Roman soldier-emperors?
Regarded as the best general of his generation, under his leadership part of Sicily was reconquered before being relieved of his command, and he had been able to resist the Normans and drive them out of Apulia before being recalled once more. Furious, he rallied every soldier from Italy to Thrace to his cause, and would win every engagement he fought in until he got stabbed near Thessalonika.
George Maniakes had essentially won the battle against Constantine IX. It is only because he was killed that his expedition failed. If he did become emperor it is likely he would have reversed all of the abuses and power of the bureaurocracy before it could leave permenent damage. A strong military presence would likely lead to the empire's much better direction and leadership against the Pechenegs, Turks and Normans and he may have even succeeded in founding his own dynasty or at least be replaced by another member of the dynastoi. It is also likely the Theme System would not decay in quite the same way that it did.
The fall came on 29th of May, Tuesday-and that's why Tuesday is the equivalent of Friday for Greeks, e.g. Tuesday and 13th...
The answer of the emperor Konstantine IA' Palaiologos, on the 22nd of May asking for surrender by the Turks, is following the spirit of Thermopylae!
Even if they hold off the 1453 siege, Mehmed comes back next year, or maybe he takes the Morea first.
It is not certain.. Maybe civil war can happen in ottoman empire, byzantines have a ottoman claimant that fought for the east empire
@@alessandrogini5283 as long as an Ottoman state completely surrounds Constantinople, the fall of the city is inevitable. It's like having a python wrapped around your body. At any moment it can tighten its grip and crush you.
@@Tommykey07 What if the other Christian states in Europe helped?
@@fridayyy.2102 well, there was the Varna Crusade of 1444, which failed. The disadvantage for Christian armies is that they are far from home, lack unity of command.
@@Tommykey07 still civil wars arevery easy to take advantage of ask the ottomans
Thanks for posting the video, It started very engagingly, unfortunately the background music that came in scrambled my brain rather, so I wasn't able to take in any more from that point. I like the pictures.
then 1454 :p ( I am greek) black houmor...I wish there was hope for continuity, especially with the last worthy emperor ... unfortunately, the previous ones were smaller than him and the empire itself was shrinking. probably if the last emperor was in power a hundred years earlier, something would have happened but the empire had essentially been lost long ago
I wish Constantinople survived at least until 1500s with guns 🤔
I think you would have to go back as far as the Battle of Manzikert. Had the Romans won, I think it would’ve probably prevented the following civil war.
There are several factors that contributed here, not just Romanos’ civil war but also events like the Bulgarian Uprising and The Fourth Crusade.
But for the sake of this argument, it was the events at Manzikert that contributed most to the Empire’s end.
Very interesting, and I love your videos. Although this video reminds me of a saying from my dad: "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts it would be Christmas all year long!"
Video about the "age of conquest", Nikephorus Phokas, John I Tzimiskez, John Kourkouas etc. would be great I guess.
A good suggestion I will add it to the list.
Ave, Roma, caput mundi! Vivat semper Imperium Romanorum in cordibus nostris.
Quod quidem eorum. Roma Æterna!
@@fridayyy.2102 Nothing it’s eternal…Besides, Romans without the Greeks to civilize them where to be nothing, and the world still was to be in the dark ages.
I feel like if they somehow "won" the siege, the Ottomans can always regroup and try again next time. The Romans were pretty much a spent force by then, it's kind of a miracle they lasted as long as they did in our timeline after the 4th Crusade especially.
Dude that Empire Earth music in the beginning!
This is an interesting view since the Byzantines were already weak at this point
The Ottomans would still be a formidable force
There is an alternate history webnovel that deals with this, it's called-"1453:Revival of Byzantium"
I encourage you to read it
Seems really interesting. I love a good "What if."
it would be very cool if the Romans won, I might do a series about that
If you want the Eastern Romans to survive, you would need to go back further. 1453 was too late. For the Byzantines to have a chance, you would need to go back at least four hundred years earlier and reverse their defeat at Manzikert as well as preventing the crusader sack and occupation of Constantinople in 1204 and the subsequent partition of the eastern Roman empire by the crusaders.
I appreciate the Empire Earth soundtrack :)
You call them, Romans, Byzantines, but they were Greeks. Greeks through centuries had to fight from all directions E, N, S and W. Plus the Greeks were fighting themselves too. They were calling themselves Romans just to project prestige as the rightful Heir‘s of the Roman empire, which disintegrated early in the fifth century. Greeks managed to civilize the Romans, but the Ottomans drag them back. The Ottoman empire was barbaric and blood thirsty. Now if Europe was not fighting each other, and Pope from Rome was not antagonizing with the Patriarch of Constantinople, the world today could’ve been colonizing the planets, 1000 years ahead. Your speculation have no value whatsoever, especially when you twisting actual facts…
Again Koraes' careful rhetoric, which matches his self-projection, seems to be in play; his classifications of“Greek slavery under the Romans” and “Greek slavery under the Ottomans” are closely linked a few lines below: Modern Greeks could justifiably boast more than Plutarch's contemporaries, when freed from the yoke of the savage tyrant, compared to which the Roman yoke could rightly be considered a luxury, and after they gain their freedom, they are willing to maintain it...16
Xenophontos, S., 2019. Brill's companion to the reception of Plutarch. Leiden: Brill, p.551.
The whole of Greece was under foreign rule for many centuries,starting with the Roman conquest in the second century BC. What distinguishes the Ionian Islands from the rest of Greece is that, with some exceptions, they did not form part of the Ottoman Empire, while the rest of the Greek world was under Ottoman rule for anything between two hundred and five hundred years. The fact that these islands were ruled by Catholics rather than Muslims has made them strikingly different from the rest of Greece, in language, music, costume, cuisine and architecture.
Hirst, A. and Sammon, P., 2014. The Ionian Islands. p.2.
Au contraire , with the introduction of Christianity the Greeks of old Hellas , who in part had remained heathen , ranked as second - class citizens ; with the introduction of Christianity the Greeks of old Hellas , who in part had remained heathen , ranked as second - class citizens ; the word “ Hellene " in Byzantium had meant the same as " barbarian " since the third century . The representatives of Byzantium who spoke koine and who called themselves Rhomaioi ( " Romans ' , i.e. ' East Romans ' and not Greeks ), did not bother very much about the rural Greek-speaking popu-lation of Old Hellas, who spoke a tongue drawn from the dialects and sharply diverging from the high reputation of the koine.
Décsy, G. (2000) The linguistic identity of Europe. Bloomington, IN: Eurolingua. p..203
In my opinion, the point of no return for the Romans was the Palaiologan civil wars of the 1340's, 1350's, and 1370's during the reign of John V. It blows my mind how destructive that era was with massive territorial losses to Serbia and the Ottomans. The Romans were left with the rump states of just Constantinople and Morea afterwards.
I think it was only after the dust of the wars had settled, after Manuel II ascended the throne, that the Romans realised too late the mortal situation they'd put themselves in. After that, it was only a matter of time until Romania fell for good.
Although 1204 effectively ended the Empire as it was, it did stop the eastern crusaders which always led to ravaged Byzantine provinces (by “chivalrous knights” and a huge drain on the economy having to host and transport these trigger happy Latins who would always bleed everything they could out of Byzantium the took provinces form them yet always 100% blame them for every shortcoming each crusade had, which in turn made all the burden of supporting the crusaders work against them as they’d be treated like Muslims. Byzantium was always the crusader scapegoat and as long as crusades happened, the more anti greek propaganda was spread.
Ottomans would of have just kept attacking over and over again untill Constantinople fell. Mehmed would not have given up..
Brilliant intro! But to be real I do believe one account need to be taken into acount here. The fact that the Byzantines were pretty much broke by the siege of 1453, which is alao why they could not afford Orbans throne. I do agree that releasing Orhan would be effective abd cause a civil war as you sugest. But I am not sure if a reconquest would be possible without external help. So I think atleast they would have help with reconquering territories with help, possibly from the veneztians. I am not so sure if they could have done this on their own
All things being as they were, if Mehmet hadn't conquered it in 1453, he'd likely have returned at a later date. And beyond that if not Mehmet then some other Sultan would have taken it. The eastern empire was done for, and wasn't coming back.
This also reminded me of 40k theories video
Either their fall to the Ottomans is just delayed for a couple decades or the Romans survive all the way up to the modern day and become a city state sort of like Andorra or San Marino
title : what if the ROMANS won the siege of constantinople?
me : indeed my friend!
Dident Mehemet say that ether i conquer Constantinople or Constantinople conquers me he was under the threat about a revolt due to people thinking he was weak if he failed i definetly belived he would have ether died during the siege because if he returned back he would have been assasinated or revolt
Demetrius Palaiologos since he is somewhat unloyal,he should be eradicated by Constantine XI and put Thomas on the Despotate of Morea,Morea would be a back-up base for the Byzantines if in case the Capital is lost
I think the fall of the Byzantine Empire and Constantinople was never a question of when, but if. Whether it happened in 1453 or a decade later, the result would still be the same…Turkish rule. The Byzantine Empire was but a pale shadow of its former self….reduced to mere remnants. They called themselves Romans, though in reality they stopped being trueRomans long ago, in some ways, the Turkish conquest was good for the city, as it stopped its decline from turning into a ghost town, to once again becoming a thriving centre of culture and commerce. The initial conquest of the city and treatment of its Greek population was quite brutal though.😊
See I think a better scenario is what if Constantine 11th would have surrender Constantinople to the Turks and became a warlord state in the Peloponnese. I heard this was an option. There they could have built strength giving the area in our time was loosely governed by the Turks. Who knows how long the ERE would have hung on and maybe strengthen in this state.
What is not academic is that you should not call city state as Byzantine was by that time a empire!
If only I had a time machine.
The big question, that I can't believe you didn't explore, is what would happen with the empire after the discovery of the Americas less than 50 years later! Would they be able to establish their own colony and how we uld that effect them? Would the waning power of places like venice be a boon to Byzantium? Would the Renaissance have occurred in the same way if the Byzantine empire had not fallen? THOSE are the questions I'd like some insight on. 🙂
With American colonisation, it's highly unlikely. Issue was that, like the Ottomans in reality, Eastern Rome was situated and locked in the Eastern Med and so wouldn't be properly able to access and travel across the Atlantic.
I think the Renaissance would have occured more or less the same way. Greek scholars had already being fleeing to the west following the Fourth Crusade and the Venetian holdings in the Aegean also contributed to West- East cultural diffusions of classical knowledge.
Nowdays Turkey is stil a way less developed than the rests of greek Constantinople - impressive walls stand against dirty and skiny horses walking arround, small houses constructed very close to each other etc.
As a fans of Roman/Byzantine Empire, I have to say, since 1204 Romans lost the chance to revive; but what directly leads to its demise? It’s the civil war between John V and John VI
Again Koraes' careful rhetoric, which matches his self-projection, seems to be in play; his classifications of“Greek slavery under the Romans” and “Greek slavery under the Ottomans” are closely linked a few lines below: Modern Greeks could justifiably boast more than Plutarch's contemporaries, when freed from the yoke of the savage tyrant, compared to which the Roman yoke could rightly be considered a luxury, and after they gain their freedom, they are willing to maintain it...16
Xenophontos, S., 2019. Brill's companion to the reception of Plutarch. Leiden: Brill, p.551.
The whole of Greece was under foreign rule for many centuries,starting with the Roman conquest in the second century BC. What distinguishes the Ionian Islands from the rest of Greece is that, with some exceptions, they did not form part of the Ottoman Empire, while the rest of the Greek world was under Ottoman rule for anything between two hundred and five hundred years. The fact that these islands were ruled by Catholics rather than Muslims has made them strikingly different from the rest of Greece, in language, music, costume, cuisine and architecture.
Hirst, A. and Sammon, P., 2014. The Ionian Islands. p.2.
Au contraire , with the introduction of Christianity the Greeks of old Hellas , who in part had remained heathen , ranked as second - class citizens ; with the introduction of Christianity the Greeks of old Hellas , who in part had remained heathen , ranked as second - class citizens ; the word “ Hellene " in Byzantium had meant the same as " barbarian " since the third century . The representatives of Byzantium who spoke koine and who called themselves Rhomaioi ( " Romans ' , i.e. ' East Romans ' and not Greeks ), did not bother very much about the rural Greek-speaking popu-lation of Old Hellas, who spoke a tongue drawn from the dialects and sharply diverging from the high reputation of the koine.
Décsy, G. (2000) The linguistic identity of Europe. Bloomington, IN: Eurolingua. p..203
The same thing that happened when they won the seige a few years earlier: borrowed time.
I think the key by this point was that, since the empire was incapable of challenging the Ottomans they were totally reliant on outside aid.
History would have been a better thing
so much to do , sou little resources . I blame John V Palaiologos for allowing the turks to established themselves on gallipoli in exchange for their support in the ongoing civil war , such a lack of good judgment ( of course the earthquake was not his fault ) . would you considered to cover the catalan company and the most unlucky ruler Michael IX Palaiologos ? such a tragic rule for the romans
It was Andronikos Iv that handed Gallipoli over to the Ottomans but you are right the weakness and disspirited rule of John V was deadly. The successes of Manuel II just goes to show what John V could have accomplished if someone other than John V was emperor.
Of Course I will cover the Catalan Company, probably when I cover the reigns of Andronikos II and Michael IX.
@@EasternRomanHistory many thanks for the intel
@@EasternRomanHistory I have the strong impression that Katakouzinos was responsible for the Gallipoli thing and in general for using them as mercenaries in the civil war.
Their always a next ottoman sultan to seige the constantinopolis.If mehmed failed in his first seige, he would come second time, 3rd time, 4rth time.If he failed, then his sons would come. May be 1453 would occur in 1553.
It could happen like umayad fail attempt to conquer in 718 ad and civil war would happened like abasasid same to the ottoman
I love thinking about 'what if' scenarios, it seems like the Romans were in deep-shit even if they survived the siege. Can't see how they would've managed. What if they had won the battle of Manzikert, then I can see the Empire surviving till today :)
Indeed, the situation in 1453 was dire and it was the reign of mehmed Ii that really cemented Ottoman power in the region. The Crusade of Narna in 1444 was there last real chance of really turning the tide but it could be argued that after the Second Palaiologan Civil war, the Empire was irrevokably doomed.
Irronically even if the Eastern Romans had still ost Manzikert, had the civil war afterward not happened or the government put up any kind of resistance to the Turks, then the situation would probably have been completely different.
The empire would have survived better if you didn't fight the long war with the Sassanids, in 602-628
the rennaissanse would have been either weaker and longer as a period of revival, or it would have not happened in the same way entirely
What if the Byzantines where able to keep the Turks from invading anitolia?
I sink that is a question of time that the bizantine empire Will fail. Its sourrond by the ottomans by every places. Its a question of time.
The Ottomans would be back in 1454.
Turkey is actually successor of both Ottoman and Roman Empire. Greeks have nothing to do with Roman Empire except get ruled by them.
They literally have everything to with the Roman empire 💀
Which language was dominant in the Eastern Roman empire? Greek. What about ethnicity/culture? Greek. What about religion? Greek Orthodoxy.
It's pretty telling how the Greek the Romans were when the Greeks of Istanbul are still called "Rum"
@@i_likemen5614 Again Koraes' careful rhetoric, which matches his self-projection, seems to be in play; his classifications of“Greek slavery under the Romans” and “Greek slavery under the Ottomans” are closely linked a few lines below: Modern Greeks could justifiably boast more than Plutarch's contemporaries, when freed from the yoke of the savage tyrant, compared to which the Roman yoke could rightly be considered a luxury, and after they gain their freedom, they are willing to maintain it...16
Xenophontos, S., 2019. Brill's companion to the reception of Plutarch. Leiden: Brill, p.551.
The whole of Greece was under foreign rule for many centuries,starting with the Roman conquest in the second century BC. What distinguishes the Ionian Islands from the rest of Greece is that, with some exceptions, they did not form part of the Ottoman Empire, while the rest of the Greek world was under Ottoman rule for anything between two hundred and five hundred years. The fact that these islands were ruled by Catholics rather than Muslims has made them strikingly different from the rest of Greece, in language, music, costume, cuisine and architecture.
Hirst, A. and Sammon, P., 2014. The Ionian Islands. p.2.
Au contraire , with the introduction of Christianity the Greeks of old Hellas , who in part had remained heathen , ranked as second - class citizens ; with the introduction of Christianity the Greeks of old Hellas , who in part had remained heathen , ranked as second - class citizens ; the word “ Hellene " in Byzantium had meant the same as " barbarian " since the third century . The representatives of Byzantium who spoke koine and who called themselves Rhomaioi ( " Romans ' , i.e. ' East Romans ' and not Greeks ), did not bother very much about the rural Greek-speaking popu-lation of Old Hellas, who spoke a tongue drawn from the dialects and sharply diverging from the high reputation of the koine.
Décsy, G. (2000) The linguistic identity of Europe. Bloomington, IN: Eurolingua. p..203
@@papazataklaattiranimam Koine is Greek LMAO. Most Greeks nowadays can still understand it. And sure, modern Hellenic identity is fairly new, but it doesn't change the fact that it is still closely associated with the "Rhomaioi" identity, and a successor to that.
Your other points don't even prove that Greeks had nothing to do with Rome. Rome enslaved everybody (as well as Ottomans) but the difference is how much they used Greek culture for their empire.
Omg,you hate Greek so much
Romans? You mean Greeks?
I know exactly what I mean.
@@EasternRomanHistory But we don't know what exactly you mean! If the Byzantines were literally Romans(which means Latins) then today in Greece we should speak italian(or another romance language) and also, we would possibly be catholic and not orthodox but unlike other european nations, we were not latinized in any aspect. Everyone knows that the greek language was the official one of the Eastern "Roman" empire and that the Byzantines spoke and wrote in greek. There are no byzantine texts in latin but only in greek despite that they kept the "Roman" identity for political reasons. Directly or indirectly, the Eastern "Roman" empire was actually the continuation of the old Hellenistic empire culturally and linguistically. Also, Justinian was the last latin-speaking emperor of the Eastern "Roman" empire and he ruled during the 6th century AD which means 9 centuries before the fall of Constantinople! You call them "Romans" but we are the descendants of those people. So, are we Romans too??? Of course not because we are Greeks, not Latins. Therefore, the Byzantines were ethnically Greeks, not Romans.
@@DimitrisTziounisRoman doesnt mean Latin.
@@arvoresdoinfinitogameplay-3482 I know what you mean but the original Romans were Latins. That's the point.
Erdogan is the name of the military technician who built the formidable bronze canon, the sole that could destroy the invincible fortifications of Constantinople in 1453.
Current objective: Survive
1492 might never have happened, as with the fall of Constantinople, there was pressure on the West to find a new trade route to India. Thus, no America.
I am Orthodox. But I am also a huge fan of Mehmet the Second. In any terms compared with Vlad the Impaler, Mehmet was a better choice!
Okay, but Mehmet was still an Islamic terrorist
Some day, some day it will come back.
Naaaah, I don't think so
Hey can u talk about assassin's creed revolution about the Byzantine coup to restore Constantinople by manual parealogouse in 1511 ad 🤔🤔🤔🤔
If they did, everything would have been better. Cause the ottomans were barbaric in their politics. And down right barbaric in mentality.
What the eastern roman empire returned to a republic
I am greek..nothing would had happened if Vizantines had won the Ottomans.Vizantines would had fallen from another sieges,if no ottomans, from another empires.
Constitine in our time line left the title of Roman Empire the king of Castile so if if the ottomans lost we could see Roman Castile
If that had happen history would have been altered completely
Oh yeah first like and first view
If it survived the siege, then the Turks will keep on sieging it until it finally falls
I am stunned no one here mentions the WHAT IF question of the most important battle in the history of the roman empire. the battle which was the final straw FOR THE DOWNFALL OF THE WESTERN PART OF THE UNITED ROMAN EMPIRE IN 476 AD TO THE BARBARIANS...……….
THE BATTLE OF MERCURIUM IN 468 AD WHEN THE UNITED ROMAN EMPIRE OF EAST AND WEST DEFEATED THE VANDALS IN SICILY AND IN NORTH AFRICA (west of carthage) AND THE ONLY THING THE COMMANDER OF THE NAVY BASILISCUS HAD TO DO WAS TO ORDER HIS FLEET TO MARTCH FROM THE MERCURIUM AND CAPTURE CARTHAGE …………….BUT THAT FUCKING BASTARD IDIOT EITHER CAUSE HE WAS BRIBED BY GEISERIC.....OR CAUSE HE WAS A TRAITOR HE ORDERED HIS FLEET TO DO NOTHING...…..HIS CHANCE TO WIN WAS GONE AND GEISERIC FOUND THE TIME TO SEND FIRE SHIPS AND WON THE DAY FOR HIS KINGDOM THUS IN EFFECT DESTROYING THE LAST HOPE FOR ROME TO REMAIN THE ACTUAL MASTER OF THE WESTERN WORLD BY THE END OF THE 5TH CENTURY AD.
FUCKING BEEP TRAITORS...…………...RICIMER...….ASPAR......BASILISCUS...…...AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
COINTILIUS VARUS...………………………..WHERE ARE MY EAGLES DAMN IT ?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
0:08 monty python xd
You know it.
If it survived, it would have only delayed the inevitable.
Then the empire will last till 2008
Won the siege of 1453? It still would not have lasted long… question that should be asked is about Manzikert or Yarmouk…
What if the Romans stayed pagan
They wouldn't have lasted much longer... The Eastern Roman Empire was bankrupt. I think there may have been deeper union with the Catholics which may have encouraged them to defend Constantinople from future invasion. It would be sweet if we still had the Romans today, but I guess they wouldn't still be called the Eastern Roman Empire.
Interesting alternative history but that never came to be because of dark forces working beneath the scenes,he,he,but nevertheless it's a true story!
It would have still fell at a later time. The Byzantine Empire was weak and did not have the men or firepower to hold them off again. The West's will to defend the East was just not there either.
Mehmet khan II byzantines horror story god's whip the ATİLA roma horror story
two of the hundreds of great Turkish inns
Lol dum dum dummmm second mongol empire comes and proceeds to steamroll the ottomans
Why Rom and Pope didn't send help to then?
The Pope did send some help, 200 archers with Isadore of Kiev and the three ships full of soldiers and supplies. It was more than some.
This would mess up the morden greek identity lol
LOL yes.
Till this very day Rome is still alive and well from China 2 Australia 2 Ireland 2 Russia and back 2 England and Japan and Mexico and all smaller regions and America.
If they survived that one they wouldn't survive another because Conquest of Constantinople was one of the Prophecy.
Yes but it could trigger some civil war after all this 'sultan' failed to take a city even with allthe resources in the world
Heck maybe the byzantines get help from the balkans to do some shenanigans during the civil war
not really much the ottoman would have regrouped and came back until such time as they could captured it the byzantine empire was a basket case by this stage it was entierly in debt to west and lacked any real territory. the ottoman had already survived a civil war and the ravages of tamerlene and was able to rebound. the ottomans would have proabbly created a bigger army and navy and invested even more on artilery before retuning.
they would be conquered by the second siege in mid 1450s. Byzantium was gone, it was when not if.
Come on, stupid venice survived up until napoleon. Gun powder era sieges became costly later and starfish-like walls made defending cities and fortresses for a long time (years) doable. See Mata vs Ottomans, the siege Of Ostende by the Spanish, the siege of Antwerpen etc. Ottomans couldn't even take Rhodes from the knights easily. Had Constantinople mimic the Italian city-states it may have survived.
What if the Romans won at Pelekanon (1329) 🤔
If only France and Britain had helped Russia in the Crimean War.