Disclaimer: First of all, I don't want this to turn into a big flame war divided along nationalistic lines.  Please don't take this as an invitation for it, thanks!  Second of all, I know this is far-fetched, that is why I posted it in the Historical Amusement forum.  Please take a moment and play along, it is interesting to theorize and play "what-if" games sometimes!

Scenario: In an ideal situation, the Western powers of Europe rally to the defense of Constantine XI Palaeologus and the city of Constantinople and launch a crusade which breaks the siege of Constantinople by Mehmed II and the Ottoman Turks in 1453.  Subsequently the Ottomans are driven out of Anatolia and back into Asia by a Byzantine mercenary and crusader army.  Giving up on the conquest of Constantinople for the moment (bear with me here ), the Ottomans turn further east for expansion.  By 1480 the Byzantines manage to take back Anatolia, the Balkans, and some Aegean islands.  Columbus discovers America in 1492 and Europe continues to expand into the Americas on into the early 1500s. 

Topic for discussion: In an ideal situation, the Byzantine Empire (still Orthodox in religion and under the Palaeologan dynasty) has rebuilt its infrastructure, economy, and military enough on its own (not funded by outside benefactors) to become a contender with Spain, England, and Portugal for overseas expansion.  Considering the Empire can build ships that can withstand the rigours of high seas travel and can sustain a defensible colony abroad:

1. Where would the Empire choose to expand to first, the Americas or the East Indies?

2. Would the Byzantines utilize new technology such as gunpowder weapons / firearms in its conquests?

3. Looking at other colonial powers as a model, how would the Byzantines treat the native populations and how would the natives view the Byzantines -- differently than the Spanish?

4. Describe what a late 16th and 17th century Byzantine colony might look like and how it would develop in its new location with limited communication with Byzantine civilization in the old empire back home.

Komnenos, I definitely agree with your observations on the Late Byzantine period; this is the period, especially the siege of 1453, that fascinates me the most.  I understand if it seems a little too 'fantastic', this is exactly why I posted it in Historical Amusements!

Anyways, if anyone else would like to 'play along' in this experiment, please, by all means, do!

Originally posted by akýncý It's quite impossible

Um, I know this and stated so a couple of times in the DISCLAIMER and my preface to the scenario!  This is a game of historical "what-if" not restating the obvious of what happened.

Please do think about it and return.  I have some things I have come up with if this were to happen, but I am waiting fro other people to post.  Let's keep this thread alive!

Here is what I would add in reply to these questions:

1. I think it would have been interesting if the Byzantines had established a colony in North America, maybe around Texas or Louisiana.  I might suggest a name, such as Colonia Palaiologina.  As some of you may know, there was a large Greek settlement in northeastern Florida, established around 1740 in what would become the city of New Smyrna.

2.  In the scenario, since the Byzantines have recovered and have built their economy up, they can now invest in new technology.  They might have Western gun casters teach Greeks the art of cannon and firearms making.  Some gun foundries might be set up in Constantinople and then the technology could be transferred to the new world colony.  I wonder if the Greek cannon-making would develop differently than that of the Ottomans or Western Europe, once they have harnessed the technology?  I wonder what a 16th-17th century Byzantine soldier might have looked like in terms of armor and weaponry...

3.  I really think the Byzantines would not have converted the native populations by the sword.  They would have undoubtedly established a church hierarchy in America, and a system of monasteries.  It would be interesting to think of how Byzantine culture and Aztec, Mayan, Iroqois culture might have clashed or have mixed.  A Greek Orthodox tribe of Aztecs might be quite interesting!

4. First of all, what might the defensive line of walls around a 16th-17th century colony look like?  The Theodosian Walls would be almost 1400 years old by then; would the walls have a distinctive "Palaeologan" design to them (whatever that might be ) or would builders seek to use the Theodosian walls as a template?  I would assume that the climate in southern Texas and Louisiana is similar to Mediterranean climate, so the houses in the colony would probably be flat-roofed and two stories tall.

The idea of the Byzantines growing tobacco and cocoa is interesting.  The Greek colony in 18th century Florida that I mentioned grew sugarcane as a cash crop.  To see a big Roman style aqueduct for irragation out in the jungles of Central / South America would be pretty amazing!

Here is some more insight into how the Byzantine Empire might finance both its colonies and the mustering of a new military force:

Byzantium unfortunately saw the bad side of the developing capitalist furvor in the Italian Republics, most specifically in Venice. During the Comneni period and even more after the disaster of the Fourth Crusade, the Italians gradually expanded their merchant community in Constantinople and would eventually latch on to the Byzantine economy. Native Byzantine merchants and businessmen were driven out of business by the Italian usurpation of the economy.

In my scenario, it would be interesting to see the Byzantines raise a native army once again, from Themes or Pronoiars established in new and reconquered territory, and drive the Italians out of Constantinople. Byzantium would still trade with the Italians, no doubt. With good management and the adoption of more sophisticated banking techniques (learned from the Italians, perhaps ), the Byzantine Empire might not make the same financial mistakes that the Spanish made. Who knows, with a revitalized economy, Byzantium might find something in the New World, or at home, that it could produce and export.

I don't think they could make it to the Atlantic, perhaps if a war with Spain or some Italian cities, they would block Byzantine passage to New World.

Perhaps if it they could colonize the New World(Now this is Wayy out there), then maybe they would be speaking Greek in the new world.

Yes, this is what I have been getting at with this topic!  Please elaborate on your statement.  Is there anything in my previous posts in this topic that you think is particularly interesting?  Please feel free to comment on my posts and add anything new that you might think of.

What if the Byzanthines conquered and settled whole Turkestan region from eastern Caspian steppes to western Mongolia? They would conquer Kara Balasagun, Tashkent and Hellenisize western steppes. That is a horrible nightmare...

Just kiddin' you know...

Well I will play along. Such a scenario is impossible but let's just do it for the sake of being imaginative. I doubt they would have much initiative to begin with as the Italian and Spanish are in the way of travelling to the New World. But IF they did I would say they would probably try and conquer India rather than the Americas. Byzantium always had a heavy drain on its economy because of the luxury products from the East it had to buy through Middle Eastern middlemen. They would have struck out for India because it was economically so profitable for them and besides that the Greeks had a historical tradition of conquest in that area of the world due to Alexander.

Again it is a pretty impossible sort of scenario but I reckon they would have chosen India over the Americas. If they did manage to recover like that though they would never be short of enemies such as Italians, Spaniards, Turks, Kurds, Austro-Hungarians etc. It seems more likely they would have concentrated on expansion within their own area.

Komnenos,

This is very interesting, thanks for finally playing!  If I am recalling this correctly, the Romance of Alexander was an important work of literature in the late Byzantine period, maybe the Byzantines would be inspired by this to continue with the conquest of India, where Alexander the Great left off!  The new Byzantine colonies having been established, I wonder what kind of goods they would be trading, from their Asian archipelago ports?

Now that the Byzantines have a revitalized economy and are not bankrupt, what would a 16th-17th century Byzantine army look like in terms of uniforms and weapons?  I wonder if they would keep any elements from their classical past, or would they adopt the pikeman and arquebusier format of the rest of Western Europe?  That would be interesting if the cataphract or clibanophorus would still be used, only now armored with steel plate instead of heavy chain and lamellar armor.

Also, how would transplanted Palaeologan Byzantine culture effect the indigenous Asian colonies?  Would it develop differently in the archipelagos?

That...was...AWESOME! 

Excellent points!  

I like your point about the Byzantines concentrating religious persecution more upon Christian heretics than the non-Christians.  The only non-Christians, besides Jews, that the Byzantines had contact with were the Muslim Arabs and Turks.  I think the hostility that the Byzantines had towards Islam and the Turks was borne mainly out of the political and military circumstances of the time.  In other words the Byzantines saw Islam as an oppressive non-Christian religion, embodied in the military and political enemy Turks.  Yes they thought the Turks were "infidels", but there are instances of the two living side by side, i.e. Digenes Akritas and the frontier lords of Asia Minor.  It would be interesting to see how the SE Asians and the Byzantines reacted to each other's religions.

Hmm.  If the Byzantines were in control of provinces such as Serbia and Hungary going into the time period that would have been the Balkan Wars and then World War I, maybe radical political groups such as the Black Hand would have been suppressed.  There would be no archduke Franz Ferdinand and the Byzantine emperor would be the ruler.  Perhaps the Orthodox church would bring some ethnic and political solidarity to the region.

I don't want to change the present course of this discussion.  However, going back to my previous post above, does anyone have any ideas of what a 16th-17th century Byzantine infantryman and cavalier might look like and how he would be equipped?

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.

Interesting.  With the "mystical eastern soul" part, he must have been talking about the influence of Hesychasm on Orthodoxy during the late period.  Then again, there was always a mystical element to Byzantine Christianity, witness the cell monks in the Egyptian desert.

It would be interesting to see a Byzantine infantryman equipped with an arquebus or musket!  I wonder if they would have kept the lamellar armor, small round shield, and other equipment that you see in late Byzantine iconography depicting military saints.  I agree with you about the cavalry.  I think they would have stuck with the heavy cataphract or clibanophoros, maybe with even heavier plate armor.

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.

Quite true.  Mass population transferal was a specific policy of the Byzantine government, albeit mainly in the early and middle periods.  The Byzantine government made it a point to homogenize the these transferred populations in terms of religion.  Bogomils, monophysites, and other religious heretics gave the Byzantines some trouble when they were transferred to Anatolia in the late 10th and early 11th centuries.  It took a while, but they were eventually converted to Orthodoxy as illustrated in the small corpus of documentation and hagiography of the period.

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?

Regarding colonisation of America, I simply think that setting up shop on a conquered piece of land worked by relatives and native slaves seems logical in the early days. Once the conquest has been consolidated the imperial government and the clergy would then make their presence felt, monastaries being set up to spread Orthodoxy into the wilderness and city churches opening and committing themselves to the social welfare they so often performed at home.

This makes me wonder though, do you think the conquests would have been instigated on the initiative of the Byzantine government or by and individual (as was Cortez's case)? Something about the bureaucratic nature of Byzantium tells me it would be a government backed expedition.

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.

Think about this scenario...

The late Ottoman Empire was known as "the sick man of Europe". Would the Byzantine Empire have been able to compete with the rising west if its existence were to conitnue? Would it suffer the same fate as the Ottoman Empire?

It depends on what you define as "technology" in the early Renaissance / late Byzantine period.  The Byzantine emigres brough priceless manuscripts and the ability to read and copy them with them to Western Europe.  Western scholars received Greek literature that had been unavailable to them for centuries.  Among these works were ancient mathematical treatises and studies from Aristotle, Ptolemy, Pythagoras, and others.  The Byzantine teacher Manuel Chrysoloras was a mathematician and taught the subject in Italy.  Many of the Byzantine scholars were interested in philosophy (Neoplatonism and Aristotelian) and the humanities (non-scientific literature).

If the later Byzantines had made any technological advances or scientific discoveries, you would think that they would have had the sense to put these advances to good use.  I guess, due to the lack of resources to fund research and the implementation of advances, nothing really happened.  On the other hand, in the typically Byzantine tradition, scholars of the late period were more interested in theology and philosophy - see Gregory Palamas and Gemistus Plethon among others.  Great advances, or highly stylized writings, were made in these fields as the physical world of the Byzantines crumbled. 

I have always thought that the later emperors would have imported Italian knowledge of fortification building and the science of gunpowder weapons to help them in their struggle against the Ottomans.  The old Theodosian Walls could have been improved with angled bastions and artillery towers.  Nevertheless, this did not happen.  Although there is some mention of the Byzantines using cannon in the last two sieges of Constantinople (1422 and 1453), there was no actual cannon foundry in the city until after the Ottoman conquest.

Yes, you are exactly right.

As I said, the extreme lack of resources that the later emperors were faced nixed any attempt they could have made to develop new technology or import the knowledge and the technicians from elsewhere.  What few gunpowder weapons they did have most likely came from either Hungary or the Balkans.  Urban the gun engineer illustrates this; he was most likely a Hungarian Christian.

They had a few artilery pieces, but when they fired from the walls, the damage done to the walls (due to the recoil eccect) was far greater than the damage they caused to the enemy.

They did not abandoned it, they were pushed out due to the integral deficiencies of the Byzantine Empire, which was fast to exchange its long-term prosperity for near-term benefits. E.g. they would buy from the Venetians a service (e.g. to land a force at some Dalmatian coast or to attack a city) and pay with e.g. tax-free commerce in the ports of eastern Aegean. That became a practice that was expanded to the Genovese and other Italians and led to the destruction of the local merchants and shipowners to the benefit of the Italians and mainly the Venetians & Genovese.

The concessions to the Italian maritime republics were a big detrement to the future of native Byzantine commerce and the survival of its navy.  However, in a way the Empire did abandon the seas in the later period.  Basil II's imperial treasury was squandered by his successors, who concentrated more on political rivalries at home and allowed the navy to fall into disrepair.  The total lack of a functional navy was a problem that Alexius I had to face when he came to power.  Along with the hiring tons of mercenaries to fill the ranks of the exhausted Byzantine army, he had to hire on the Venetians as a navy. 

John II and Manuel I Comnenus built the fleet back up and the Byzantine navy saw some action in the wars against the Normans and off the coast of Palestine and Egypt during the Second and Third Crusades.  However, the Angeli emperors allowed the navy to once again decay and by the time the Venetian fleet sailed into the Golden Horn in 1203, the only thing that protected Constantinople by sea was the great boom chain across the waterway.  Finally, I think it was either Andronicus III or IV Palaeologus who disbanded what was left of the Byzantine fleet in order to free up the funds to pay the marauding Catalan Company.

 The fighting ability of the Catalans is something I certainly wont dispute, they appear to have been thoroughly brilliant soldiers, so few in number aswell which makes many of their victories even greater.

 The assassination of Roger de flor was obviously going to enrage the Catalans, but they were mercenaries how long where they going to play to the empires tune before looking to their own interests? They must have seen an opportunity to create a small Catalan empire in Asia Minor, the last thing Byzantium needed was another potential enemy.

 I'm wondering though, how would anybody else have dealt with the Catalan problem? you cant get rid of them through force, you cant buy them off because your pretty much bankrupt by now and cant just hope the problem goes away these guys want paid and terirtory of their own.

 If the Catalans could be controlled theyd of been indespensible, I cant help but think if only theyd been around a century or so earlier.

Perhaps when they had fulfilled their use, continue using them in suicide situations. If they are not annihilated completely, then they would be weakened enough for the main Byzantine army to wipe them enough.

The Turks no longer breathing down their backs would have given the Byzantines ample time to recuperate. The Byzantines would have been able to concentrate on improving their empire rather than bare survival. The Catalans could have been the catalyst for a Byzantine revival... or they could have pillaged the Balkans like the actually did in history.

Hey, I never said it wasn't a gamble.

Precisely as I suggested. Fierce though they may have been, the Catalans were just men, and died just the same.

A Catalan miracle would not have been enough to save the empire. The Byzantines would still have needed an effective emperor to make the best of what was given to them.

After some further reading, it seems to me that Andronicus II's elimination of the navy and the fact that he sent the pro-Arsenite Tarchaneiotes to reform the army in Asia Minor were his biggest blunders.  The hiring of the Catalan Company was pretty much a direct result of the Tarchaneiotes fiasco.  Not only was he part of the hated Arsenite faction, but he systematically confiscated church properties and land holdings of the dynatoi to give to the small-pronoiars.  He was able to put together a small army of pronoiars and mercenaries but ended up being recalled in the end because of the religious opposition.

Supposely from the defeated Ottomans, which at the time had many gunpowder weapons, the Byzantine can utilize these weapons into standard arms. Actually during the late period of the Byzantine, they were pretty slow in adopting the new weapon (could be that their continous defeat against the Ottomans failed to see how effective the Ottoman firearms can be without any capture of them). So with the new weapon, they could match against the Ottomans and secure their frontiers and their colony outpost in India considering they have superior firearm against the native Indians medieval weapons/tactics.

This is my interpretation of a Byzantine overseas empire.

In this alternate timeline, the point of divergence from our own timeline begins after the ravages of the civil war of the early 14th century (1321 - 1328).  Byzantine territory is now firmly set in southeastern Europe, around Thrace, southern Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, and Morea. Only minor holdings in Anatolia remain and they include the major cities of Nicaea, Nicomedia, Smyrna, and Heraclea Pontica; Philadelphia is still nominally Byzantine, but is basically under self-rule. This is the setting of our diminishing empire. It is surrounded on all sides by powerful, youthful empires: by the Ottomans in NW Anatolia, Bulgaria to the North, Serbia to the West, and the Latin states that control the southern Aegean Sea. Whatever, it’s with these remaining territories that the Byzantine Empire stage their remarkable turnaround and develop into a naval and commercial empire.

Andronicus III Palaeologus was to be the emperor that would set the Empire on its course towards prosperity. Ironically, it would also be his reign that would see some of its greatest losses, shedding vital territory to nearby enemies. In 1329, Andronicus set up a panel of four judges, termed “Universal Justices of the Romans,” who would combat corruption  from within. After the long and devastating civil war that lasted an entire decade, this became a normalizing force, restricting the power of the aristocracy who, as with the 11th century aristocracy, were a large cause of Byzantine disintegration. In the same year Emperor Andronicus also constructed a moderately sized navy. From small beginnings, this navy would immediately begin the re-conquest of North-Aegean islands from the Genoese. It would also be the key to his successful defense of the costal cities in northwest Anatolia, which in our timeline were lost in the early 1330’s. I have no imagination what-so-ever, so you’ll have to come up with your own little back story as to how Nicaea, Nicomedia, and Smyrna survive; but the point is they remain intact with the Byzantine Empire, allowing it to control the Marmara Sea, and thus, Black Sea trade. 

It is with Byzantium’s European possessions, however, where most land will be lost. Stefan Uros IV Dusan of Serbia will remove from the empire Epirus, Albania, Thessaly, and the Vardar river area. In the future he would be crowned Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks. For now though, Andronicus grudgingly accepts things as they are, and builds up a power base in Thrace and the Rhodope mountains (which will supply most of the timber for a growing navy in the future) of southern Bulgaria. Thessalonica becomes the western-most frontier city to Serbia’s new empire. In this timeline, Serbia will retain control of Epirus, Albania, and the Vardar region. Thessaly will mutate into a Greco-Vlach state which will go onto capture Athens and become a minor power for a couple of centuries. In any case, things in southeastern Europe are at a standstill as each state is only powerful enough to control their own territories; alliances are made and broken, wars begin and end, and no state seems to be able to break out and dominate the others. By the way, this interlude also gives a respite to Byzantium’s woes, and it is allowed to progress economically and politically. Events such as the Zealot riots and the second civil war are to be butterflied away. This is a cheap move on my part - not explaining things in more detail. I realize that and apologize.

To understand Byzantium’s recovery in the late 14th century with this timeline, one must look to the events which are taking place in Anatolia. In this timeline, the Greeks are able to hold off any Turkish invasion of Europe, thanks in part to the rejuvenated navy. It is my reasoning that Orthodoxy was able to flourish the way it did into the modern period thanks to the Millet system of the Ottoman Empire. That is why Anatolia was thoroughly Turkish even by the 14th century. Ottoman expansion into Europe forced the Sultans to adopt the Millet system for internal security as they conquered millions of Christians and added them into the empire. Thus, the Greeks who remained in Anatolia past 1453 were then added into this Millet system and conversion to Islam nearly stopped at this point; their descendents would be the 1.5 million Greeks who still lived in Asia Minor in the early 20th century in our timeline. Again, this is my reasoning, I could be wrong. Anyhow, without the moderating force of the Millet system, Turkification will continue as it had before, especially in devastating period where, in my timeline, the Ottomans are fighting huge wars with the Karamanid Emirate. This will cause a mass migration of Orthodox peoples towards Nicomedia, where the Byzantine emperors will begin a process of resettlement throughout the various parts of the empire. In total, 70,000 Anatolian Greeks will make the migration into Byzantine territory. With them, they will bring the knowledge of producing gunpowder, guns, and cannons. (Because they were forced by the two Turkish powers to make these weapons and fight with them in the devastating wars in Anatolia) New foundries are built in Constantinople, Adrianople, and Thessalonica. In short, the 15th century will see a rise in population and an increase in the adoption of foreign weapons technologies.

Here is a map of the East Mediterranean region in the year 1490:

Total Population: 1,250,000

Constantinople: 24,000 + 2,500 Italians
Thessalonica: 13,000 + 1,000 Italians
Nicomedia: 11,000
Adrianople: 10,000
Nicaea: 9,000
Smyrna: 8,000 + 1,500 Italians
Mystras: 4,000

The 15th century was also a time of cultural expansion. Manuel II would refound the University of Constantinople once again. This time, contacts made with new Italian thinkers would transform what would normally have been a school of religious and philosophical thought into one that cherished the civilizations of antiquity.  For the first time, the term “Hellene” has made its way from a small circle of intellectuals into the masses. Even the poor agricultural class would adopt this name for themselves. With this newfound interest in the classical world, old texts are meticulously copied and studied. The introduction of the printing press into Byzantium in the future will allow for the mass production of such works. One such work, the Indica by Arrian, would be most highly prized. It spoke of the exotic lands of India to the east.  The Indus and Ganges rivers, which were compared to the Nile and Danube rivers, would hold a certain fascination by many Greeks. India would be the land that the Byzantines most sought after - with new ship making technologies spreading from the Iberian peninsula, it would only be a matter of time before Greeks would once again settle there.

The late 15th and early 16th century would finally see the first instance of overseas expansion by the Byzantines. The first stage will be to secure territory in the Mediterranean Sea from which a larger empire can begin. Throughout the 15th century, the Byzantine Empire had made great strides in reconciliation with Western Europe. Though the Catholic and Orthodox churches were still separate entities, the animosity had been significantly lessoned due to careful diplomacy on both sides. Turkish, Arab, and Berber piracy in northern Africa and the Levant had forced the Eastern and Western cultures to combine their navies in an attempt to eradicate Muslim piracy. The Spanish Empire, which controlled much of the Mediterranean Sea at this point, was unable to wage war on the sea against the Muslims and commit resources to the New World, so in an agreement with Thomas II Palaeologus in 1512 the Spanish crown ceded Malta to Byzantium. In an attempt to create a closer link with Portugal (who was at the forefront of African exploration towards India), however, Thomas II and Manuel I of Portugal initiated a combined attack on Spanish Melilla in Northern Africa. Malta and Melilla would become great harbors and suppliers for Greek merchants and explorers on their way out of the Pillars of Hercules. This early period of exploration also brought a closer relationship between Byzantium and Portugal, the technology of the Caravel (ship) having been given to our Byzantines. Throughout the 16th century, these two countries would initiate dual-explorations and would found new colonies together. Royal marriages between these two nations would also become commonplace. (Note: I did this to allow for Byzantine/Greek Colonies in places such as Brazil, India, and SE Asia)

So this is Byzantium in the early 16th century. Trade routes to the east are stifled by various Turkic and Arab empires. However, with new shipping technologies handed to them by Portugal, as well as the rediscovery of ancient Greek geography and cartography, Byzantine exploration will push out to the Atlantic, down the coast of Africa, and up towards India and beyond.  These new lands will provide exotic spices and trade goods, incredible new flora and fauna, and above all (remember, this is still a very religious time) new converts to Christianity. New colonies in western Africa were almost always jointly controlled territories administered, by treaty, by Portuguese mayors. Also by treaty, all Christian missions to west Africans must be Catholic. Although this effectively made Byzantium the “junior partner” in this relationship, it did allow its men to learn carefully the art of sailing, how to set up and administer colonies properly, and it did bring much gold and slaves back to Constantinople. In 1530, John III of Portugal prepared the colonization of Brazil so as to prevent further French incursions in the area. This call to settle new lands was especially promising for thousands of  Greeks who had left Anatolia and were forcefully relocated by past emperors. These people would join the thousands of Portuguese people in setting up new colonies on the eastern coast of Brazil. The most successful Byzantine colony would be “New Smyrna,” located on what is now present day Maceio on the very tip of Brazil. This land would soon become huge sugar cane, cotton, tobacco, and corn plantations, bringing tremendous wealth to Constantinople and its Black Sea trade. And unlike in west Africa, Orthodox missions were allowed. Settlers began the conversion of many natives in the area, setting up many small churches. The most prized church, though, would be the Hagia Irene modeled directly from the Constantinople version of the same name.

Honestly, I’m too tired to finish this. I’ve spent a few hours at work with this and it’s time for me to wrap things up. Some events which would happen in this timeline include:

- Greek settlements in Western and Southwestern India are dense. Not just traders, but religious missionaries, peasants, and adventurers.  Greco-Indian cities develop. Byzantine architecture blends with Indian to create interesting hybrids.
- The trade of spices from SE Asia such as pepper, cloves, cinnamon, and nutmeg enrich the Byzantine diet. New world foods like tomatoes, maize, potato, and chili peppers make Constantinople a Mecca of culinary arts.
- The overseas empire is broken up piece by piece by stronger European powers over the following decades and centuries. Many trading ports remain Byzantine, even in India. Zanzibar remains a prime Spice growing region.
- Portugal regains independence from Constantinople and begins the long process of separation from their previously close ties. Byzantium shifts its external policy eastward towards a rejuvenated Russia.
- Thessaly and Attica will rejoin the Byzantine Empire. Anatolia becomes completely Turkic and Muslim, save for a few scattered cities under Byzantine protection, as well as in the region of Pontus.
- New Smyrna will fall under Portuguese sway, but will still retain its Greek/Orthodox culture.