What If the Byzantine Empire never Fell

Other Videos related to this subject:

The Fall of Constantinople:

Crimean war:

Facebook Page:

[southpawskutatoi]

The Byzantines were already a defacto vassal state of the ottomans by 1453 paying tribute to them. To posit that the Byzantines could conquer any territory in the Balkans let alone continue to hold onto their land is not a well informed opinion.

[mercianthane]

I always thought that the Battle of Manzikert was never a major blow to the romans. They lost countless battles before against Bulgarians, Persians, Arabs, Alans and still recovered to show their true might. The issue was the internal strife after Romanos Diogenes came back to Constantinople, which the turks used to settle in Anatolia (there were some turks already living there tho). You also have the normans as a living thorn in the west, plus the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders.

The restored Roman Empire was weak, no longer a major power, but they could've survived under the right circumstances... then the Ottomans came and they finished what the crusaders started.

[onemoreminute]

The two main divergent points needed imo to save the Byzantine empire are either:

- Avoiding the Fourth Crusade's sack of Constantinople and partition of the empire

- Avoid the Palaiologan civil war of the 1340's

[IndoHelleneBall]

the moment Gustiniani fell, the city fell... If only we never fell

[vareg]

very good content man, could you make a video of a byzatine soldier.

[southpawskutatoi]

The Byzantine empire was almost certainly unrecoverable after 1204. The eventual success of the Nicean Empire was merely prolonging the inevitable. Without the cooperation of Western states, and internal Byzantine, politics, the reconquest of Anatolia, which, at the time was the heartland of the Empire, would have been nearly impossible. Turkish tactics and nomadic tendencies made controlling the plateau of Anatolia nearly impossible. Byzantine tactics of recapturing, and holding cities was only a temporary measure, and would often resolved in a Turkish reconquest after Byzantine military presence moved out of the area. The serious population and economic issues that the empire first encountered in the sixth century was still having ripple effects nearly 500 years later. Maybe if Latin forces were selfless and cooperated fully with imperial agendas, then a reconquest of Anatolia could be realized. But short of that, the Empire was doomed to atrophy at the small bites of ambitious men from the East and West, laying a hold of lands under weak imperial authority and a lack of manpower to enforce that authority.

[quinnwhite]

Please do a how to dress like a byzantine soldier

[datbo]

you seem to neglect the ethnic makeup of this new eastern rome. I doubt the turks would just allow themelves to be deported/genocided or just plainly subjected and hellenized and neither would the bulgarians, serbs or romanians. Although, it is heavilly dependent on the emperor, orthodox christians in general would likely have gained "roman citizenship", similar as to what the early history of eastern rome had suggested with the coming of slavs to the balkans. I wonder how this state would deal with internal stability, since austria hungary, almost entirely a catholic empire, was completely divided ethnically and let's be frank, it was doomed to fail. Not to mention the byzantine's tendencies for civil war...

[arvoresdoinfinitogameplay-]

Think they could keep western Anatolia, modern Greece, modern Albania, Thrace and Moesia.

[DivusJulius]

I can pretty much guess where said conflict is going to lead to.

[BartimaeusAurelius]

I don't know if this theory of mine is backed up historically speaking, but I believe Venice delayed aid on purpose.

[rickynuckles]

You have a nice video but you overused the word said. You didn't even use it right half the time. It was irritating please stop. Otherwise good video.

[arvoresdoinfinitogameplay-]

I dont think they could keep the Levant neither Anatolia or anything after the Danube