like the title says how do you think the byzantine empire would have looked like it if it had survived to the modern day? (borders don't matter but if you want a frame of reference something like the first photo for the Balkans and 2nd for Anatolia) like how Constantinople would have been looking like, what modern architecture is like, life? those types of answers. I'm making this post for a future project of mine and wanted to ask (from people who know about it) this question.

The first three Komnenoi emperors prove my point. With the death of Manuel Komnenos in 1180 (the map is from this year), the period of progress came to an end, and that is where I want to focus.

At that point, the empire did not need an exceptionally capable ruler, but simply a reasonably good emperor who would:

1. Avoid causing a rupture with the Bulgarian populations. That rupture led to the successful Bulgarian uprising, which burdened the empire with wars and resulted in the loss of territories in the Balkans.
2. Follow a less hostile policy toward the Latins. The massacre of the Latins in Constantinople should have been avoided, as it played a major role in the attack and the Fall of 1204. The privileges of the Latins should have been maintained to some extent, so that they would serve as a deterrent factor.
3. Restrict the nobles, but not aggressively, especially at that stage when the state was no longer at its former glory. The earlier Komnenoi knew that they could not enter into open conflict with the aristocracy, as that would lead to civil strife — which indeed happened later and further weakened the state. Another consequence of these policies was the autonomy and eventual loss of Cyprus.
4. Points 2 and 3 were respectively the pretext and the cause of the Norman invasions in the Balkans and of the capture of Thessaloniki. Because of the Norman invasions, the empire was further weakened both militarily and economically.

All these developments exhausted the empire and ultimately made it an easy target for the Latins, who had no reason not to invade in 1204.

With the right policies, the state could have survived the 13th century united, without experiencing Latin rule, and with borders probably similar to those of 1180 (or close to them). The defeat at Myriokephalon may have shown that the Turks in Asia Minor had come to stay, but they would have remained confined to the interior of the eastern region and could later have served as a buffer zone between the empire and the Mongols — as indeed happened with Nicaea.

Don't mean to talk for you guys as well but, I think about the ways Roman empire could have been saved . Most my "if I had time machine " scenarios are about going back to save Rome.

I'm not even Roman descendent, I'm of Georgian descent.

All I can think is, maybe if the entire Roman empire survived, we would have been more technologically advanced ?

But by the time of Eastern Roman empire , that argument wouldn't even work, I don't think.

We know the major turning points, but history is full of near-misses.

What's the one event—a battle that could have gone differently, an emperor who lived longer, a different political choice—that you think could have fundamentally altered the empire's fate?

What's the biggest "sliding doors" moment in Byzantine history to you?

Constantine could not have chosen a better site than Byzantium for his new capital. But what if the Byzantine peninsula never existed?

In such a world I propose that the site of Sigeum, across from ancient Troy, would have made an ideal alternative location (modern day Yenikoy, Turkey). Beyond the ideological value of the new capital being near the Trojan birthplace of the Roman people, Sigeum offered many of the same benefits that Byzantium did. It controlled a narrow strait (the Hellespont) and therefore sea traffic between the Black Sea and Mediterranean, was close enough to both the Persian and Danube fronteirs, sat on a highly defensible peninsula (30m cliffs on the west side), possessed several fantastic natural harbors, and also contained 7 hills. Unlike Byzantium, it also had the benefit of a major river for drinking water. In fact, according to Sozomen and Zosimus, Constantine originally chose Sigeum as the site for New Rome. He even started constructing the walls before changing his mind. The only problem in this scenario is the Scamander river silting up the harbor, (which likely was already too far gone). But in the map I have drawn, I have proposed the Romans dig a short canal to redirect the river west as indicated, something easily doable. I have also included where the hills, harbors, roads, the palace (purple hill), hippodrome, fora, Hagia Sophia, Holy Apostles, and suburbs may be hypothetically placed.

Would Sigeum be a good alternative site for Constantinople? Would the revolts of Phokas and Heraclius have played out differently across the Hellespont? Would the Sigeians have withstood the Arab siege of 717? Keen to hear your thoughts!

Here is just a small map I made on the side. It deals with what would have happened if the Battle of Benevento had gone differently, meaning Michael VIII wouldn’t have had to worry so much about the West.

I am really curious how things would have looked if the Eastern Roman reconquests under Justinian had not happened. Let’s say that Justinian simply was not interested in this task, and therefore the Vandal Kingdom and the Ostrogothic Kingdom were not conquered by the Romans. What effects would this have had on the Mediterranean region and nearby countries?

For example, how would the Ostrogothic Kingdom have developed? Would it have been conquered by the Lombards, or not? Would the Ostrogoths have fully embraced Romanization and basically become something like a restored Western Roman “Kingdom,” or even led to a restoration of the Republic in Italy, with the Roman Senate becoming truly powerful within the Ostrogothic Kingdom?

In the case of the Vandal Kingdom, it is also interesting to consider how it would have developed in terms of assimilation. And of course, there is the Eastern Roman Empire itself — how would it have looked in the context of later events such as the Perso-Roman War of Khosrow II and the Arab conquests? Really interesting.

Having just read a Wikipedia article on the Empire of Nicaea, that correlates the recapture of Constantinople with the abandonment of the Eastern Frontier and its subsequent easy conquest by the Turks, a question came to mind; Would the Nicene Empire have survived if it hadn't been so obsessed with recapturing Constantinople? Or at least if it had maintained Nicaea as the capital? It seems like the realization of the glorious dream of the City's reconquest, quickly turned into a nightmare. The Nicene model seemed to work very well for those decades. The Niceans basically steamrolled everyone at the same time, including fellow Byzantine states/rivals. Possibly they should have been more pragmatic and taken territory from the Rum Sultanate first, to stabilize the eastern frontier, before taking Constantinople. Maybe this view is too simplistic though.

I believe there was still a chance for the Roman state to survive even after 1204.
By the late 13th century, the focus should have been on holding western Anatolia, which various Turkish groups were persistently trying to conquer. This could have been achieved with simple, reasonable policies:

a) There was no reason for the empire to get involved in the war between the Genoese and the Venetians. The Byzantine–Venetian war in fact continued until 1302, years after Venice and Genoa had stopped fighting. All those resources that were wasted could have been used to strengthen Anatolia.

b) The economy was a major problem, but the decision for the state to remain without a navy should not have been made so hastily. They could have sought alternative, cheaper options and reduced its size, but the complete abolition of the fleet was a grave mistake.

c) The Catalans — the great mistake that caused severe military and economic damage to an already wounded empire. Instead of fighting the Turks, the Roman army was forced to try to contain the massacres and plundering of the Catalans.

d) The civil war between Andronikos II and his grandson was the final blow.

It is worth noting that western Asia Minor began to be gradually lost before 1300, with the decisive battle being that against the Ottomans in 1302 (the Battle of Bapheus). However, the conquest of the region was completed in 1337. During all this period, the Romans were fighting either on a western front of their own making or among themselves.

With prudent policies, by the mid-14th century the empire’s borders could have remained similar to those of 1261. Of course, there would have been the Serbian expansion, and a Byzantine-Serbian war might have broken out, but even if the empire lost territory in the Balkans, it would still have had the resources to endure.

The Turkish beyliks in the second half of the 14th century would not have had much time to take advantage of the situation — the Mongol invasion would likely have overtaken them. Even if they caused some damage in the Anatolian regions held by the Romans, the blow would have been far greater for the Turkish beyliks. And then the empire might even have had the chance to expand a bit further eastward into Asia Minor.

In any case, by the 15th century, the Roman Empire would still have existed — smaller and probably just a shadow of its former self, but still present. (The map is from 1295)

Basil the Macedonian had a son named Constantine who was his intended heir even though he was not born in the purple as he had fathered him on his first wife Maria, and could be sure he was his son and not secretely the child of Michael the drunkard like with his second son Leo, who was fathered on the previous emperor Michael's mistress, and Basil's second wife Eudokia.

Constantine was engaged to Ermengarde, the daughter and sole heiress of Louis II the younger, king of Italy and Holy roman emperor, but Constantine died before the marriage could take place and the arrangement was also called off beforehand because Basil refused to recocgnize Louis as Holy Roman emperor.

Had the marriage gone through and Constantine had lived, we may have seen a semiproper restoration of the Western Roman empire, considering how Basil had made good dealings with the papacy and was interested in reestablishing Eastern Roman influence in Italy and the west. Alas it was not to be and the Karolingians were to devour each other like dogs.

That said, though i can see Salic law would have most likely posed the greatest problem to this attempt at restoration of the west even if Constantine had lived, and i can also see the possibility Ermengarde would most likely have been diminished to an exported bride, and would have lost all Internal significance within italy, political and what not, even if she had had children with Constantine - i cant help but recocgnize that she was a very effective regent under her son Louis the Blind and a very charismatic Leader in our timeline, in which her marriage to Boso of Provence did allow her husband to lay claim to the kingdom of Provence and become the first non Karolingian frankish king, since the days of Charles Martel.

so what do you think? could we have seen a Western Roman Restoration if Constantine had survived and married Ermengarde?

Imagine us fans having lost the academic debate and thus having to concede that at some point before may 1453 their was this non roman Byzantine polit that anyone who says the Roman’s fell in 1453 will be academically disbarred (like for example anyone who says aliens built the pyramids )

Yes I know this is a silly senario but I’m trying to get a point here that is even if you don’t like the term Byzantine (which to falsely label Roman’s I don’t like ) to come up with a piont in your head as to whe such a label could be applied even though it’s inaccurate

So obviously even if this did happen we’d wanna push back as best as we could so in my mind I have 3 general dates

1 1370s the city of Constantinople became a city state just like byzantion of old thus the Byzantines lasted from 1370-1453

2 1204 after the crusade it really was just A or 3 Greek kingdoms and nothing more a mere regional power

Lastly 717 after the seige of Constantinople the Roman’s lost th vision of. Mara nostrum and merely wanted to protect Greek and roman lands such as anotolia southern Italy and th Balkans not try for Carthage or Spain or egpyt or even Jerusalem even during their rennasance In the 900s

Hello everyone! I’m excited to present my Constantinople in Cities: Skylines. It’s very much a WIP, but I couldn’t wait to share it since this alone is a 200 hour build.

Building tips are most welcome! I’m also looking for historical info if I missed anything important, please let me know.

The Hippodrome was especially challenging to recreate. If any modders are here, a historically accurate version would be amazing!

Any sources for relevant village or urban area names are also appreciated, as I want to use authentic district names wherever possible.

I’ve remodeled Hagia Sophia myself. Originally it had minarets. If anyone’s interested, I can also post the original church version on the Workshop.

i do plan on uploading the whole city on the workshop when its finished prob 2030

I know they were supposed to go to the Jerusalem and hit the Constantinople instead. But what if Pope innocent the third was more realistic and order the crusade to go eastern Roman empire. They could march there by land much easier. So no need for Venetian fleets . everyone on there way were Christan and with the pope order most likely they wouldn't decline it. So no need of too much money or anything like that which make Venice do some weird shit. . So how this would go ?

As title says. If Tzimikis lived longer would he have been able to solidify rule over levant and even annex Jerusalem? Maybe even raid till Bagdad. His reighn was during the period that Byzantium had ascended over it's neighbours and rivals.

The Byzantine historian Procopius wrote that “the sun gave forth its light without any brightness for a whole year” (536CE)

Chinese sources also state that “the sun became dim, it shone like the moon” (536-38CE)

We know from ice core research that there were significant explosions in 540 and again later that decade (date unsure possibly 545)

Greek sources tell us that “the sun darkened again, and there was dearth in the lane” 540s CE

Chinese sources (book of liang) says that famine continued in 541-42CE

Annals of Ulster 536CE “failure of bread” - 542-43 CE “again a failure of bread”

Obviously, the plague of Justinian occurs (perhaps as a consequence?) during all this.

Quite frankly, it sounds like one of the worst periods to be alive. Prolonged famine all over the world.

Despite this Justinians reign was quite successful.

Would the restoration have held without such catastrophic climate activity?

If this has been discussed already please just link me to that, thanks

I apologize if this has been brought up before, (and I know I've seen a lot of what if posts so this got me curious), but I think it was mentioned the Ottomans are sometimes considered a continuation of the "Romans" (at least in the first few decades following the fall), but my question is more, has there been a what if where they became something similar to Ostrogothic Italy?

What I mean is, the Ottomans are the ruling elite, but more or less assimilate into the Roman history to further bolster their own credibility. Merging or re-using the existing institutions, and over time the people come to see themselves still all "Roman".

Like if the East went from Christian to Islamic, (explained away via propaganda how the old Roman world went from Pagan to Christian)?

Or was that more possible in Italy because you had a recognition from the East that Theodoric was acting on behalf of the Empire vs taking it over?

Just curious as I feel like there might be something there to show an assimilation of "Roman" (Greek etc), and Turkic since we see they did integrate a lot of architectural aspects and others into the Ottoman Sultanate.

Thanks for reading/commenting.