Byzantine Empire expands overseas

A scholar, whose name frustratingly escapes me at the moment, once said that the Byzantines were a mixture of a Roman body, a Greek mind, and a mystical eastern soul. Keeping in that tradition, I believe that a 16th - 17th century infantryman and cavalier might have looked quite different than the western uniforms. A soldier might be equiped with the latest in gunpowder weaponry, but their clothing might reflect Persian, Turk, or Arabic styles. As the Byzantines focused much on their heavy cavalry, a change to the light cavalry popular at this time might be difficult. However, their weaponry and clothing might be similar to the infantryman with western weaponry and eastern-style uniform.

Byzantine Australia......... now there's a thought. Had Byzantium decided to try and colonise Australia they would again have had been in a good position to snap up the land. Had Byzantium possessed Sinai and constructed their own Suez Canal they would certainly have stolen a march on the European powers. I suspect their attempts at colonisation would follow very similar lines to that of the British. The local population of the country were incapable of fighting off technologically advanced and organised enemies so there would be no question of Byzantine success in simply conquering the land. Also like the British I suspect the Byzantines would not be especially interested in integrating the local peoples into their society. Like the British they would be more interested in importing a Hellenic population to settle, farm and create cities. In the vast open spaces and away from the traditionally beleaguered Byzantine heartlands I think such a population would also develop a more liberal and open minded view to contrast with the austere line of thinking practiced in the "mother country". Their ability to control the entire continent would be purely dependent on their naval strength. Any population brought here to settle needed, in its early stages, very strong resupply and protection by a powerful navy. No other nation would even think of settling a population in Australia unless they were confident their navy was strong enough to supply and defend a fledgling community surviving in a land with no previous foundations of civilization to build on. This is the reason Britain managed to so effectively bring the entire land mass under its control.

Just imagine the state of Victoria under Byzantine settlement. Rich in minerals, farmland, fishing grounds. Melbourne with its brilliant natural harbour and positioning. And then the Hellenic settlers would discover gold and the rush here would be immense. Perhaps in the rich lands instead of Victorian architecture the vast amounts of gold would fund churches even more magnificent than the Hagia Sophia.

No mate, I am Anglo-German. Apparently there is some Russian. I am told I am a synthesis of these three, which is quite a mixture of vices and virtues haha. I don't have any Hellenic blood so far as I know going back 8 generations, but I live in Melbourne which has the largest Greek population for any city in the world except Athens. The Byzantines have simply fascinated me for years, and thankfully when I began researching them my ever scrutinizing mind was left unsatisfied by the simplistic historical views formed by the traditional historians.

Byzantium is a badly misunderstood and underappreciated area of history which deserves so much more attention. So if you have a heap of "what ifs", well get the ball rolling because my last exam is in four days and I would like nothing better than to get into this sort of thing. That goes for anyone, Byzantium is something to be passionate about and is still in need of pioneers, so keep up the good work.

The question of how the Byzantines would treat the natives is very interesting.  Examining the ways in which they interacted with the Egyptians, the Slavs, and the Russians might might give us some perspective.  As I have already stated, the Byzantines had a great deal of difficulty in integrating the Egyptians into Orthodox Byzantine society.  Egypt was, in 5th and 6th centuries, and after to a lesser extent, a hotbed of heretical Christian sects.  Although they remained mainly religious in nature, the leaders of these sects often brought a political element into the mix by resisting the authority of the emperor (and the imperial church, incidentally).

With the example of the Russians and the Slavs, however, I should point out that these peoples were more receptive of Orthodox Christianity.  In fact, they had previously been pagans, and in the case of the Russians, actually requested missionaries from the Orthodox Church in Constantinople.  Their king, Vladimir, accepted the Orthodox creed and became a pious individual with a changed lifestyle as a result.  The Slavs were converted by the famous Cyril and Methodius, who constructed the Glagolothic alphabet for their language and for their liturgy.  It should also be noted that these peoples, although they belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople, were permitted to conduct the liturgy in their own languages.

So, in looking at how the native Americans might react to Byzantine missionary activity and Byzantine cultural exposure, we can use the above examples.  Unlike the medieval Western Roman church, the Orthodox church did not resort to violent coercion as an official policy.  If Byzantine missonaries approach the natives in this way, and show themselves to be different than the bellicose Spanish conquistadores, they might be able to succeed in bringing the Mayans or the Aztecs into the Orthodox fold.  The only difficulty might be in the development of Monophysite heresies (believing that Christ has only a divine nature) in the Indian church.  The Egyptians held onto the idea of a ruler being a divine being ever since pharaonic times.  This mdae it easier for them to accept only the divine nature of Christ.  Being that the Aztecs and Mayans viewed their Emperors in much the same way, they might in turn develop a similar heresy.  The Byzantine missionaries would have to reinforce the Orthodox diophysite view (Christ had a human and a divine nature, indestinguishable from each other) in the Indians' case.

Imagine what an Aztec or Mayan Orthodox church might look and sound like!  Their unique architecture combined with Byzantine Greek styles in a church building would be amazing to behold!  Also, it would be interesting to see a mixed Byzantine and indian icon-painting tradition. 

Good point.  Since mass population transfer has always been a signature policy of the Byzantine Empire, I wonder from where they would move people to populate the new colonies?  All would be Orthodox like you pointed out, but which ethnic groups?  Sending Greeks from in and around Constantinople, especially if they are able administrators from the government, might be good to have at the top overseeing the building and planning.  For security reasons the Empire would probably get rid of the Turkish mercenaries it had in the army; it would be especially important to not send Turks to the Indian colony because they would seem too Moghul-like.  Maybe the Byzantines would return to using the stout and rugged Isaurians and Armenians (Hellenized and Orthodox, of course) to make up the army. 

An interesting question is what kind of administrative system would be used to organize the colonies.  Would it be the vicarate and dioceses of Diocletian, the themes of Heraclius / Constans II, the pronoiar system of the Comneni and Palaeologi, the appenage organization of the Palaeologi, or some new system?  

If the government of Constantinople came to terms with and accepted the mystical practices of Hesychasm, maybe evangelizing using Hesychast Orthodoxy would appeal to the Hindu and Buddhist Indians.

Yes, you are correct.  I was saying that if they were going to use Armenians, the Byzantines would have to make sure that they were first brought back into the Orthodox fold, if not Hellenized.  In the early and middle period because of military neccessity the Armenians were drafted into the army wholesale without particular attention being paid to their heretical beliefs.

Would this come as a result of living in close contact with the Spanish in the New World, that the Byzantines would see that the Spanish way of administration worked well and therefore would adopt it as their own? 

I wonder, in planning the administration of the colony shortly after it was established, if they would decide on one of the Byzantine methods based on historical precedent?

Good question.  I think the decision to make new conquests would originate with the emperor.  The Byzantine emperor's preoccupation (theoretically) was supposed to be extending the Christian Roman Empire over all the known world - this is the concept of oikumene.  At this point, around 1500, the Spanish had already discovered the New World, so it would be included in the "known world."

Originally posted by Herschel I think you restrict this alternate history too much by your scenario. I think it would have been better off if you began in 1204. In this, the pretender (under Venitian influence) doesn't garner the support of another crusades. Thus, Byzantium is allowed to recoup from the Turkish onslaught. Western Anatolia and Pontus are Greek possessions. Then, and only then, does Byzantium survive.

Thanks, but I tried to resolve this issue in my original post and in subsequent posts when others raised similar complaints.  Namely, I was not really interested in the means through which Byzantium would survive.  We all know the possibilities and can endlessly speculate on the results.  Rather, I was more interested in what would happen if the Byzantines were able to establish a colony in the New World.  Please see my posts in the first page to see what I am refering to.  But, by all means, join in on the discussion as put forward in my original post!   Constantine XI has caught on to my train of thought and has contributed to the discussion on this page.