>>59871442
Just combine the freely available data for Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Albania, Greece and Turkey, you mong.
Also if it is "the Byzantine empire" it would be heavily driven by religion, thus you should average out prosperity on the lower end, and fertility on the higher end. Also a modern Byzantium would have this "orthadox nationalism" thing, where race or ethnicity doesn't matter, as long as you are orthodog, so you can fill it with arabs.

Basically a Mexico in the Balkans, being brain drained by the EU, and rotting in there.

>>59871540
If Rome had continued it's probable that there wouldn't be an EU. It's doubtful there would be any World Wars as we know it and the last thousand years would have been different and probably better.

>>59871792
I think you can safely substitute the Ottoman empire with the Byzantine one in most of geopolitics.
Of course, butterfly effect and all that, but I can easily see a "world war" happen at about the same time - no more "empty space" to colonize, population boom in Europe due to fertilizer and medicine, rapid urbanization due to factories, nationalism degrading empires and MUH CLAY in the air everywhere, war is inevitable.

I'd say it would be behind in some technologies, but also have some cool tech no one can reproduce, the fleet to rival the fleet of US.
They are a constant threat to Middle East, wanting to make the region christian, they are allied with Russia. Israel hates them, same for Iran. EU hates them and promotes separatism in poor regions west of Constantinople, tries to seduce these little ethnoses to join the EU

>>59871847
>I think you can safely substitute the Ottoman empire with the Byzantine one in most of geopolitics.

You're rather thick, aren't you.

This is all making the assumption that it remains static for that time and doesn't at some point absorb or merge with the HRE. Maybe the royal families intermarry or something and suddenly it's SPQR time again.

>>59871961
Are you one of those brainlets who think the Russo-Turkish wars are about religion, and not about the straits?

>>59871442

Like Greece & Turkey it would have the potential to be a moderately wealthy 1st world nation with an economy based on shipping, tourism and agriculture but it would have serious problems with corruption holding it back, just like Greece and Turkey do.

It would be a sizable military power, possibly a rival to Russia, with a sizable navy to protect its shipping lanes and trade, plus a large land army and airforce mainly concentrated in the east because of its problematic borders with Russia and especially with Syria.

With that in mind it would have extensive problems with refugees just like Turkey does now, but exacerbated by being a largely Christian country and the refugees being largely Muslim.

The east of the country will have a much larger Muslim population than the rest of the nation and will probably have sectarian tensions and separatist groups. There might even be legitimate or de-facto autonomous regions in the East of the country.

Politically it would be extremely pro-western and pro-EU because of its close proximity to Russia and its reliance on NATO to retain its territorial security. It would be a close ally of the U.S. ad probably host American military installations, which might cause protests among the populace because of the inherent problems they bring.

If it had been a single uninterrupted Empire from late antiquity to the present day it could have had colonies in Africa and the Americas which it would still have cultural and political links with.
Greek could be a language in parts of South America or Africa, and Greek culture and the Orthodox religion could be more widely spread around the world.

>>59872519
Or they could be very closely tied to Russia and being long standing allies against both the west and the further east. In which case all that but just switch EU and Russia around.

>>59872519

Does it still have a monarchy? Did it have a revolution? Did it go Communist or fascist?

For the sake of argument lets say it began a long civil war in the early 20th century which lasted decades, although at a low level.

The country was on the losing side in WW1 and although escaped serious reperations found the lose humiliating and the monarchy was abolished. Communists, fascists and democrats began openly fighting for control in the power vaccum that followed.

A communist/socialist coalition was able to take de-facto control of the country after being supported by Russia, but still faced serious internal conflict for real control and large parts of the country were controlled by other political factions, mainly concentrated in the far east and west.

Although officially neutral in WW2 fascist 5th columnists aided Italy in a surprise assault which swiftly took the west of the country right up to Constantinople. The country was effectively split in two for the rest of the war, with a puppet fascist regime in with its capital in Athens and the Communist Government relocated to Inconicum. Constantinople itself becomes the site of intense geuirrla fighting and several battles become famous for the tenacity and heroes shown by the soldiers involved.

>>59872657

As the war comes to a close Allied forces invade the west and the puppet Government surrenders, however in a clever political move the U.S install their own national Government in Constantinople to avoid handing the country back to the Communists.

For the next decade the country is split in two between a military dictatorship in the west and a communist dictatorship in the east. It is one of the espionage and political intrigue hotspots of the cold war with many international plots taking place as the two world powers move against each other.

Eventually with the end of the Soviet Union the country is reunified and becomes a democracy with a its capital once again in Constantinople. This is a cause for enormous celebration in the country and is celebrated as 'iméra anexartisías' or 'Liberation Day'.

>>59872669

After reunification and democratization there is major economic growth in the country but also serious problems with corruption. Modern day 'Romani' is a distinctly divided country;The East is still a serious problem with Communist and Islamic factions fighting for separation and/or autonomy, and crime, corruption and poverty are major issues in Asia Minor. The West is relatively wealthy, liberal and Europeanised by comparison, and because of the flow of immigration from the East has a much larger population.

>>59872657
The problem here is having Italy actually doing anything competent during WW2.

>>59871961
I'm afraid you are. The major economic advantages of the geographical poition would fade the same. It wouldn't participate in the western european enlightenment the same.
It would become the sick man of europe too, and probably lack any golden age following expansion

>>59872812

Greece & Turkey still have huge geo-political importance.

Shipping and oil pipelines are vitally important to the region.

>>59873190
Turkey does, but Greece?
When did the oil pipelines start being relevant? 70 years ago? That still leaves all the centuries inbetween

File: makedonian ambitions.png (3.16 MB, 1768x992)

3.16 MB PNG

>>59871442
shitty borders TBQH

>>59871540
After a thousand years of evolution a modern Byzantium could be pretty much anything, from a shining beacon of parliamentary monarchy to North Korea.

>>59873387
autism tbqh senpai.

>>59871442
No

>>59871540
>Just combine the freely available data for Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Albania, Greece and Turkey, you mong.
Except centuries of t*rkish mismanagement has made the entire region a lot weaker than it could be. Purely going by population and resources there's literally no reason for Turkey to be weaker than France. It's just that France is full of Frenchmen and Turkey full of... well, Turks.

>>59871792
Based on what grounds? Also it is doubtful that the Eastern Roman Empire would survive the age of nationalism unscathed.

>>59876370
Why not? Its "core" lands (the Greek peninsula and Anatolia) were pretty much Greek. Also, it's entirely possible for these dominant Greeks to pursue a policy comparable to that of the French where they more or less eradicate all local identities. Another example: when Italy was formed, only 5% of the Italians spoke the Tuscan dialect that we now call "Italian". Hell, even in modern day China the effort to Mandarinize/Hanify(?) the country is yet to be completed.

>>59871442
How the hell would a byzantine empir survive the age of nationalism and the cold war?

>>59876409
>Its "core" lands (the Greek peninsula and Anatolia) were pretty much Greek.
It also had lands with non-Greek populations, there is significant differences between Slavs and Greeks unlike Italians and other Italians. Furthermore Slavic lands were primarily populated with Slavs unlike Alsace-Lorraine.

>>59871442
Maybe about as powerful as france. going by the borders in your pic

>>59873357

Of course they're relevant, where do you think Europe gets all its oil & gas from?

And shipping is the biggest industry in Greece.

>>59871442

Depends on how it came to be. If it's an Ottoman descendant, basically Turkey. If the Byzantines somehow avoided conflict with the Persians long enough that the Islamic conquests couldn't just roll up both weakened empires then God only knows.

Big question marks are:

-What is it's relationship with Russia?
-What does the rest of the middle east look like? If we're assuming Byzantine descent, does Zoroastrian Persia survive?

File: Vercingetorix.jpg (4.05 MB, 2205x3920)

4.05 MB JPG

>>59876452

Same way damn near every other state in Europe did. Lie and invent a common national history. It's the reason we talk about the Roman Empire fighting the Germans, or the Britons, as if the quarreling fractious tribes that lived there back in the day were analogous to the modern day states.

Pic Related: They put that statue up in 1865. Same reason.

>>59879595
If the ERE is still around, the question is does Russia as we know it even exist.

Also if the Islamic conquests are waived away you're not talking about the Byzantine empire anymore, you're talking about the Roman empire proper.

>>59873387
I just can't stand this picture. Seriously, man, Conquer Syria/ The Levant. Why on earth would the guy conquer Croatia and Bloody Austria before taking back Jerusalem, like any sane Emperor would. Oh, and relying on Kingdom tier vassals is shit taste.

>>59879781

Fair points. The reason I brought up the Islamic conquests is because it's the only way I could see Anatolia being part of an Orthodox Byzantine empire.

The theory is that once the Mongols fall back, Byzantium may be able to recapture an Orthodox Anatolia. But if you have something like the Ilkhanate establishing Islam on the Anatolian peninsula, Byzantium is not going to take and hold it, particularly if there are strong Islamic states in the middle east who will have a religious obligation to restore it to the Dar as-Salam.

As for Russia, read "Whatever political entity or entities that wind up existing East of the Baltic and North of the Caspian and Black seas"

>>59879781
Russia would have a probable ally in Byzantium, if nothing else. Assuming also that the monarchy of Byzantium itself isn't disposed of in some form of 20th century revolution they would also have had vested interested in protecting the monarchy of Russia.

>>59876269
The Turks based much of their cultural values off of Byzantine Greek beliefs, for example the hijab.

I wonder if the Soviet would have collapsed at all. The Soviet block was mostly landlocked which seriously hampered their economies and power projection. With the Eastern Roman Empire in their pocket, they are far less constrained.

Everyone’s ignoring how the Silk Road would have still become defunct with the advent of Global Trade, the discovery of the New World and the charting of trade routes across the Horn of Africa. By the 17th century the whole region was economically stagnant. Byzantium would have suffered accordingly.

And which Byzantium are we going by? Macedonian Byzantium? Komnenoian? Palaiologos? Justinian? Theodosian? Doukid? The answer is important, since it determines the state of their economy, their borders and even their culture.

>>59879783

Because these lands are far more important. This was the true core of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Ottomans. Anatolia was always the underdeveloped bit of both empires. conquering Viena is crucial. Why? Because Viena is at the limit of Ottoman/Eastern Roman Empire logistical capability. Viena is like a conquering a new Cairo. It's an extremely strategical city. It would allow not only to protect and solidify a defensive ring around the core but actually expand into the heart of Europa.

>>59881083
>Anatolia
>Undeveloped
It was the heartlands of the Empire, anon. It’s where they got most of their soldiers and their wealth. Greece was, surprisingly, the shitty little backwater where priests went to set up monasteries. It was a shitty backwater in Roman times, it was a shitty backwater in Byzantine times.

>>59881169

No. Modern Turkey is an aberration. The core of the Ottoman Empire always was the Sea of Marmara, Constantinople, and the European bit. Anatolia is little more than a buffer, the scraps that modern Turkey has been forced to live with.

>>59880997
The major driving force behind the colonial era was to get around Ottoman tariffs. Assuming Byzantium has a sounder relationship with Europe there would be less of an incentive to find alternate trade routes.

>>59880997
Byzantium would have certainly missed out on the Atlantic trade and colonization rushes, but that doesn't automatically relegate it to shit tier status. Other countries also missed out but still managed to keep up with the colonial powers, in cultural and social progress at least if not sheer power.

>>59872657

>Take Constantinople

Gallipoli.

>>59881336
Also the lack of scholars fleeing the Turks would have slowed down the Rennaissance. It's hard to overstate how much Europe as we know it depended on Byzanitum biting it.

>>59881238
And I’m telling you that Asia Minor was considered (especially after the loss of Egypt and Syria) the heartlands of the Empire right until the end of the 11th century. This is something professors (notably Timothy Gregory) agree on. Caria, Lydia, Bithynia and Phyrgia in particular were notes for their large cities, productive agriculture and well-maintained roads. This is where the food was made and, consequently, the soldiery. It’s no surprise that following the collapse of the Eastern borders to Seljuk invasion, Alexios relied on mercenaries more than state troops.

And the Ottoman Empire did not rely on Asia Minor because the Ottoman Empire trashed Asia Minor. Centuries of neglect under Rum and later the Ottomans was compounded by emigration of the native Greeks to the European portions of the Empire. Like many ancient regions, the lands under the Ottomans were not the lands they were under Basil.

>>59881441
Scholars have been fleeing to Italy since Islam reared its ugly head towards the Eastern Roman Empire, anon. It’s been a steady stream of expatriates for almost 500 years. Yes, the final death of Byzantium birthed the Renaissance, but Italy was still a centerpiece of Greek learning and culture, to the point over six Popes came from Greek-speaking families (Agatho I, John V, John VI, and Zacharias I.)

>>59881508

The Sea of Marmara region is a rich, unified, outward-oriented region. But none of this is true for the rest of what comprises modern-day Turkey, namely, the Anatolian Peninsula.

Anatolia is much dryer and more rugged than the Marmara region, starkly raising the capital costs of infrastructure and agriculture. While it is a peninsula that would normally generate a maritime culture, its coastline is smooth, greatly limiting the number of good ports. Mountains also rise very rapidly from the coast, so unlike the Marmara region, there is little hinterland to develop to take advantage of the maritime access. There are notable exceptions — the flat coastal enclaves of the Antalya and Adana regions — but the norm is for an extremely truncated coastal identity. Anatolia's valleys are also higher, narrower and steeper than those at the peninsula's western end. This encourages the development and independence of local cultures, thus complicating the matter of central control. Taken together, Anatolia is as capital-poor, parochial and introspective as the Sea of Marmara region is capital-rich, worldly and extroverted.

>ere survives
>its royal house marries that other great orthodox house; the romanovs
>Russo-Byzantine dual empire
wew

>>59871923
>Byzaboos
Is there anything more pitiful?

>>59882321
luxemborgboos

>>59881381

They would have been fairly well placed in the scramble for Africa. (Assuming they kept pace with European industrialization). Also, the Suez canal in 1870 would have given them access to the Indian Ocean.

Come to think of it, if they were allied with Russia, the British would probably wind up hating them like poison during this period.

Of course, if they were allied with Russia then the Crimean war can't really happen unless the British somehow take the Dardanelles. It's possible to imagine the British hyperventilating so hard about the "Great Game" that they wind up attacking Byzantium. Though it's more likely they'd try to develop Persia into a client state.

>>59883012
Well the Crimean war entirely about Britain and France helping Turkey against Russia. If the two are now allies, the war has no justification to exist. Them being allies essentially turns the Black sea into a private lake off limits to other powers. It also turns Russia's geopolitical attention further west than south. But that's all a big if though. Geographical determinism would play at least some role in the two countries' relations and there's no reason to think Russia wouldn't be as hurting for warm water ports in this timeline as it did historically.

Do you think there is a "realistic" way the Byzantine Empire could end up a major modern-day First World power (maybe not the US, but Germany or France) instead of the second Albania, and what would it take?
Where would you have to go off into alternate history, and how far would you have to stretch historical credibility?

>>59871442

You cant just plop down a state somewhere and not completely change history.

Where is the point of divergence? The Battle of Manzikert and the turks never settle in Anatolia? They never get burned down in the Fourth Crusade by that blind venetian fuck? An unexpectedly successful restoration in the 1400s?

Events from the divergence would continue changing history in ways completely unexpected ways to your average half-educated historian who probably believes a lot of enduring misconceptions aswell.

The impacts would be serious from the onset and continue to ripple out and change things into complete alt-history unless you forcibly decide to keep things on "track" because a lot of history was actually pure random, dumb change,

For example, what about Hungary? If Byzantium exists the turks never get to them and there is this great power sitting there, jockeying for influence over the Balkans with Byzantium and keep stating interventions from Naples to Bavaria like they hisotrically did. Or what about Poland, who get to completely focus on their push aganist the Rus? What happens to islam without the ottomans behind it? What if it just collapses altogether? What if it causes an islamic reformation to happen? What happens to the Reformation without Byzantine refugees? What happens to the Imperial political landscape if Austria remains a minor border power and never gets Bohemia and Hungary? How France, Spain and England will interact with this radically different balance of power? What if France just get fucked by its neighbors without the stabilizng effects of the franco-ottoman alliance and the counterweight of the ottoman empire?

cont.

>>59883346

Cont.d

What if a major war breaks out based on any of these factors and ends with such a wildly different result? What if a ruler falls in battle? What if some major house like the Habsburgs or the Trastamarans die without issue and their country gets balkanized between nobles? What if some weird personal union happens, like Poland-Hungary? What if someone inherits a throne? Changes build and compound on eachother within a century you'd end up with a completely different alt-history that while may very plausible and actually happened this way but it doesnt "feel" right. It would be totally impenetrable to anyone who isnt a history buff.

Its completely pointless to argue about the demographics of Anatolia when the very presence of a Byzantine Empire would cause such sweeping changes.

>>59883012
>>59883225
If the Byzantine Empire still existed with the borders defined by the East/West Schism of the Empire, than I very much doubt Persia would exist into the Early Modern Period. Grabbing the last gasps of the Silk Road, alongside valuable ports in Hormuz, would have incentivized a resurgent Byzantium to make efforts into expanding the borders into their ancestral enemy.

File: 1813% done with this shit.png (290 KB, 754x554)

290 KB PNG

>>59879765
>Country was reshaped by the closest thing to Caesar reincarnate
>Zero statues celebrating Caesar
>Instead they wank off the guy who was pretty much a speedbump to Caesar's Gallic campaign
I'm still mad. They could've gone full "WE WUZ ROMANZ 'N SHIET" instead of wanking off unwashed barbarians. Hell, their staunch republicanism even works perfectly for that. If Caesar is too controversial (and even then, he's about as controversial as Napoleon... for pretty much the same reasons) why not a nice statue of Cicero or Cincinattus or ANYONE EXCEPT FUCKING UNWASHED GAULS.

Hell, in a pinch even Clovis could w-
>Clovis converted to Catholicism and modern France hates the Church
STILL. SEETHING.

>>59883225

IIRC Britain was motivated to attack Russia out of concern that Russia's expansion to the east threatened their holdings in India. "The Great Game".

If you remove the Ottomans as a counterbalancing power in the west, Russia is a bigger threat to the British in the east. So you can expect the British to be throwing their weight behind anyone who has a bone to pick with the Russians or Byzantines, and trying to drive a wedge between Byzantium and Russia.

As for warm water ports, that's where you could have a long term modus vivendi between Russia and Byzantium. The Byzantines support the Russian merchant navy with treaty ports. The Russians provide their land army to back up Byzantium. Russia's biggest naval weakness is their inability to concentrate their forces. Having the Byzantines holding the med would free up resources for the Baltic. By the same token, the Byzantines having access to Russian manpower that can be brought in across the black sea makes their position far more secure.

There's a natural alliance there, if enough cultural contact can be maintained.

>>59883327
>Where would you have to go off into alternate history
Justinian never embarks on his mad ambition to reconquer the Western Roman Empire, and instead sets to work on spending his vast treasury on infrastructure, grand architectural works such as the Hagia Sophia, and quelling the growing rebelliousness of the Egyptian provinces.

Alternatively, and perhaps more fascinating as an avenue of consideration, is if Basileus Herakleios won the day at the Battle of Yarmuck Valley, which was the decisive land engagement of the Arab Invasions that allowed the Caliphate to conquer Egypt, the Levant, and eventually push into Persia. It is impossible to understate the importance of this confrontation. If Herakleios was able to humble al-Walid's invasion forces or, better yet, slay the General himself (for he was one of the military geniuses of the age) than you might see Islam being little more than a curiosity of the Arabian Peninsula.

Without the Arab Invasions, it's impossible to say what would have happened in the following centuries. Zoroastrianism would still exist. A Visigothic Iberia would still exist. Charlemagne's father would not have earned his glory at the Battle of Tours. The Western World as we know it would not exist.

Probably a regional power at best with its positioning. Probably wouldn't get along with Russia or any middle east countries based on religious differences. Might be a bit more civilized than the current countries in those borders with better infrastructure and such

>>59883695

If Byzantium holds onto Egypt all bets are off though.

File: epic memri tv image.jpg (24 KB, 480x360)

24 KB JPG

>>59883890
>byzans being stable enough to reconquer anything

>>59883890
It would be more than Egypt, anon. If Byzantium was able to fend off Al-Walid at the Battle of Yarmouck, they would have held onto Egypt. They would have held onto the Levant. They would have held onto Syria, and Armenia, and Cyrenaica. There would be no Muslim Persia, which would have remained a bastion of fire worship and Zoroastrianism. There would be no Seljuks - at least, insofar as the Seljuks as we know them.

The only constant in an Alternate History Europe cleaved by the victor of Yarmouck would be the Mongols, who would have still arrived in all their terrible splendor. I can't say that the Byzantine Empire would win against such an opponent, but they would certainly understand them, as the Byzantines have a long and rich history of working with the various Steppe people of the Crimea, such as the Alans and Khazars and, eventually, the Rus. Good lord, if the Battle of Yarmouk Valley ended in a Byzantine Victory there wouldn't even be an Iconoclasm, which was largely attributed to Muslim influences in the Court on the use of Ikons.

Everything would have changed, anon. Everything.

>>59871442
there's like literally no way of telling. the byzantine empire surviving to present day would be a massive divergence from history, and any attempt to make a realistic guess about your questions is futile because you're deep into alternate universe fantasy-land at this point.
just make shit up. it's the year of Basileus Constantine XXVIII and orthodox stronk. chariot racing replaces soccer as the biggest sport in europe. go wild.

I like to imagine the story ultimately ends with the former Empire becoming a communist country after World War 2, ruled by the leader of the local anti-Axis resistance, only for the Socialist Federal Republic of Constantinia (tentative name) to divide in the early-mid Nineties along ethnic lines: Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and a "West Turkestan" (tentative name) made from the Crimean Peninsula and the non-Greek areas of Anatolia that didn't break away to join Kurdistan.

>>59883557
Clovis was an interesting figure to be sure.

>>59871540

IRL places where the orthodox church prospers are WORSE than western europe in terms of fertility, tough.

>and for all its shit Russia is still relatively multicultural and happy to be it, odd as it sounds

Anyway as this all makes no real sense as we don't have a point of divergence, which would be the only thing to build something on, tentatively as it would be.

>>59871792
>and probably better.
I doubt that. Had Europe been unified under a single empire, chances are we'd be China version 2.0; a stagnant collosus. Europe's development has arguably benefited from its constant conflict (war, social or religious conflict etc).

At the end of the day it's kinda masturbatory alt-history (like most of it).

>>59887286

Well, the real problem is another. The problem is if an eternal rome would've got the industrial revolution or not, basically.

>or if other places in the globe would've

Per se at its apex Rome was different from China 'cause it was less self-contained. I can kinda see somehow that they managed better the barbarians (century-long expansion in the north?) but the real pain in the ass was Persia.

Now, thinking they somehow would get both Persia up to its deserts AND nowdays eastern europe is pretty much a wank already, I guess, but I don't think it's totally impossible.

>>59882544
At least Luxembourg is still a country

>>59887431
Right, and part of what fueled the fires of the industrial revolution in England (for example) was colonisation. What could have driven an Eternal Rome to look outwards? Europe looking outwards and having both the technology and cunning to get what we wanted (some of the time) did A LOT to establish the world order we now have today. The Chinese on the other hand banned sea trade despite their relatively decent technological advanced up until then, and we all know what happened when european ships started messing about over there.

>>59887286
>Europe's development has arguably benefited from its constant conflict
Well, decentralization has probably benefited Europe at least. If you were a scientist in the 17th century Europe and wanted funding for your research but the king of Spain said no, you could always try your luck with the king of France or Portugal instead. If you were a scientist in 17th century China and the emperor denied you funding, well sucks to be you.

>>59884194
>The only constant in an Alternate History Europe cleaved by the victor of Yarmouck would be the Mongols,
>Talks about the butterly effect
>Still thinks the Mongols would arise over 500 after the POD

>>59887586

That's because at the time, the Mongols came from the edge of the goddamn world. The influence of Europe, North Africa, and Asia Minor on the Mongol Steppe was negligible at best. In the same way that China, India, and the Americas could have rolled along their own merry way for a thousand years or so before the echoes from the failure of the Islamic conquests might have hit. So too would the Mongols, not be particularly bothered.

While true, you can't predict it, you somehow need a chain of causality that either causes the Mongols to fail to unite, or for the Chinese, whatever becomes of the post divergence versions of the Kievan Rus, and Khwarazmian Empire are to be able to stop the Mongols before they hit Europe proper.

>>59887517

I dunno, I don't think it was THAT important. Intracontinental warfare and competitivy was, tough.

On the other side, personally I think it's a bit chauvinistic to think shit would've be to go OUR way or nothing. I mean, there is metric fuckton of reason why Rome would've had dificulties to getting to the industrial age (or China and India, I guess) like slave labour, lack of standardized technology or science as we know it, perhaps even shit like the job system in the Empire, but still, we'll never know.

Anyway taking actual Rome "unity" is not really that realistic for our hypotesis, isn't it? More like uniformation even in the periods of warfare.

Odd as it sound I can kinda see the ships making it to America tough, IF they find Greenland. Consider that even IRL the norse people got there more or less by chance and for reasons like overpopulation.
If we assume the north sea IS inhabited by romans and at some point there is more demic pressure in Britain (and probably Germany, which I think it would be a given it's colonized more by romans) I think people in Scandinavia would try... interesting things. Even better if they go full Vikings, because the romans would just nuke the site from the orbit, which in retunr would mean MORE people taking the sea to colonize Pictland, Ireland, whatever... and then probably Iceland and even further.
One could ask at this point exactly would the neoromans do with this idea of a new land. In general I don't think they would be that interested in colonizing it: Europe wanted a) commerce with China which I assume would be pretty steady in the Indian sea and b) wanted more lands ready for plants like the sugarcane (more possible, at least tentatively, but they have Egypt).

Granted, this is a big if anyway, at least considering naval tech: it's not like by the time Cesar went into Britain they were ready to sail to Vinland. I don't think tough they were THAT beyond, so with an influx of wealth and commerce, maybe.

>>59871442
It would depend almost entirely which sides they fell on during the world wars, which is basically impossible to predict.

>>59887775
>That's because at the time, the Mongols came from the edge of the goddamn world.
What is it like basing the sum of your historical knowledge on medieval total war?

>>59887934

To add: in this hypotesis we have

a) something like a Scandinavia influx of settlers in... say, IRL New England (give them more edge in tech if necessary, I can see shit like late medieval tech being in use in say, IRL Charlemagne-1000s time)

b) neoromans being interested in exploration, of course, but not that prone to colonization
[barring very peculiar situations, I don't think China would be a factor]

This would mean the Americas do take the blunt of the oceanic exchange (so widespread epidemies) but they almost surely have time to recover on their own. And take in their hands things like the wheel, horses, steel.

Kinda fascinating if you ask me: the new Athens might very well be Palenque.

>they only real reason I can see Rome do something different is if they need shit like gold and silver badly.

>>59888005
Not an answer, the rise of the Mongols was wholly unaffected by the failure or success of the Muslim invasions. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we have evidence of the Oriental indifference towards the Muslim invasions as seen by their response to the conquest of the Sassanid Empire by the Caliphate... Or, to be more blunt, their LACK of a response. The Chinese at the time didn't care. They didn't care when Rome fell, they didn't care when the Byzantine Empire became the Ottoman Empire, they didn't care when the Sassanids became part of the Caliphate. All the Chinese cared about was the trade continued to flow. We were as much a curiosity to them as they were to us, and it was only until the rise of Global Trade that we actually became something more than nebulous trade partners.

And that's in regards to the Chinese Empire. How would the failure of the Islamic Invasions changed the course of Genghis Khan's conquests? Certainly you could make a case for Sassanid Persia putting up a solid effort in halting his invasion of the region, but I doubt they would've been able to hold them off forever.

>>59871442
Ok, so, assuming that what happens is more to do with the Sultanate of Rum collapsing. There are several issues. Nevermind the delays in the Renaissance, the main thing we have to ask is what on Earth do the Habsburgs do. France is decidedly going to get close ties to the Byzantines. Charles V and Francis I may have a third power to content with - and one that just might be enough of a pain in the ass for Charles to get really mad at. Then, fighting in the tribes, and the bloody Danube - if they control the southern bank, the implication is that the Habsburgs control the northern bank. And then things just get weird when you start factoring in Poland.

Byzantine Empire throws a lot of unexpected spanners into the works.

>>59871847
>I think you can safely substitute the Ottoman empire with the Byzantine one in most of geopolitics.
Byzantine wouldn't refuse access to the silkroad for the christians as the ottoman empire did. Which means they wouldn't have a reason to find a different route to india/china. Which might have led to america been discovered a whole lot later. And without colonialism shit drastically changes.

File: 1500.png (85 KB, 1204x650)

85 KB PNG

>>59871442
If the Pod is avoiding Manzikert, the Roman empire would almost certainly include Southern Italy, and maybe Sicily. The Normans threat would be able to dealt with if the Romans hadn't had their guts torn out by the the Turks. That means the Romans will be much more involved in Italian (and Papal) politics. That likely means the "Great Schisim" is like so many of the earlier schisms between the Orthodox Church and the Catholics. Might see one of the Komnenoi reconcile with the Pope or invade and set up an anti-pope.

>>59888630
You have a deep misunderstanding of the differences between the Caliphates and the Sassanian Empire's interactions with Central Asia.
If the Romans win at Yarmouk, then the whole of Islamic history is changed. Without Syria to act as a base for Umayyads and the Syrian Arabs, the Caliphate will Persianize much faster. That means being more accepting of Zoroastrianism, more accommodating the the local nobility, and Persianizing their military. It also means that they will have to deal with a surviving Roman Empire, which will require a much great commitment of resources and troops to the Roman-Persian border. A more divided and more Persian style military is going to mean we won't see the Turkish slave armies that marked the Abbasid Caliphate. No Turkish Slave Armies means no constant overthrow of the weakened Caliphs by their ultra pious slaves, which means no Seljuk invasion of the Middle East, meaning we likely see the Oghuz Turks remaining in Central Asia and interacting more with the Mongols and the Chinese, which will drastically change what ever is going on in Central Asia. That will almost certainly butterfly Genghis Khan.

>>59890313
Colonialism would likely still happen. The survival of the Roman Empire might cause some delays, but the collapse of the Central Asian Khanates into smaller states would negatively impact the silk road.

>>59892665
>You have a deep misunderstanding of the differences between the Caliphates and the Sassanian Empire's interactions with Central Asia.
I'm a NEET working on 5 year old knowledge from College, I'm doing the best I can.

File: 800px-byzantine_empire_th(...).png (201 KB, 800x512)

201 KB PNG

>>59892786
It's all good, anon. I don't expect most people to have detailed knowledge of the rise of the Seljuk Turks and the effect of slave raids on Central Asia. It just happens that I'm working on my Master's in Middle Eastern History.

>>59892665
>continued from no Manzikert
The continued Roman presence in Southern Italy is going to strangle Venice. With Romans on both sides of the Stait of Otranto and fielding the most powerful navy in the Eastern Med, you can guarantee that Venice will slip into decline. The Christianization of the Slavs had already dramatically cut into the profits of the Venetians as it limited their ability to sell the Slavs into slavery. The Germans will probably sell them Balts to sell to the Muslims, but its going to be a trickle compared to what they had before. Venice will either fall to the Germans or be reabsorbed into the Roman Empire.

The issue of the Crusades is another big one. Emperor Alexios I Komnenos called for help from the Latins to push the Turks out of Anatolia, but there was already growing religious fervor and Pope Victor III had already gotten the ball rolling with the Papal sanctioned invasion of Tunis, plus there's still the fact that the Turks were far more restrictive on Christian pilgrims than the Fatimids had been and defeating them at Manzikert isn't going to destroy them. Turkish raids into Anatolia and Turkish religious intolerance could very well be enough for us to see something very similar to the Crusades. Maybe we just get a North Italian Invasion of Tunisia that spawns a series of smaller crusades to try and end Muslim piracy and slave raids from North Africa. The could restore Christian rule over North Africa which would be a boon to Western Europe. North African grain, massive decrease in piracy and slave raids will dramatically help the economy of southern Europe.
A Crusade for the Holy Land will likely be much more successful with the backing of the Romans, and might see Crusader Egypt.

>>59871442
depends on when you have your point of divergence

>>59893673
If a Crusade for the Holy Land does happen, the Crusader states would likely be protectorates of the Romans,still being mostly independent feudal fiefdoms rather than being incorporated into the Roman Themes. But that also means they will be a lot more fragmented from the get go and that probably means no Kingdom of Jerusalem. Crusader Egypt will probably be ruled from Alexandria and only control the Nile Delta, with the rest of Egypt de facto under the rule of Muslims (at least temporarily). This probably means that Muslim population of Egypt remains Shia as they won't be conquered, massacred, and forced to convert by Saladin. That also means that the Kingdom of Makuria is going to be much more integrated into the Christian world and won't be crippled by the Ayyubid invasions. You might even see Makuria conquer the Fatamid remnant and have a direct border with Crusader Egypt. Again, an enlarged Christian world means Europe gets integrated with more of the world, considerably sooner. The Crusader states, as the Middle men, will almost certainly grow very wealthy as a result of this. You're gonna see a lot of the conditions that helped give rise to the Italian Renaissance occurring in the Levant, Egypt, Italy, and the Roman Empire. You might even see an ambitious Duke of Alexandria try and rebuild the Canal of the Pharaohs. You will be seeing a world where Egypt and the Levant are considered European because of how integrated into the European economy and culture. At the same time this is also going to mean the Duchy of Alexandria will be drifting further away from the Romans as it begins to more openly compete with it. They will be undercutting trade through Constantinople by facilitating trade through the Red Sea and the new Canal. The Egyptians will also be competing over being the dominant force in the Holy Land, undercutting Roman authority and almost certainly undercutting the Patriarch of Constantinople.

This may collapse if the Mongols attack.

>>59878499
>where do you think Europe gets all its oil & gas from
not Greece.
> shipping is the biggest industry in Greece
Yet none of Europes 20 largest/busiests ports by any metric are in Greece

>>59894032
Let's assume that the Mongols do appear as per OTL. This PoD is significantly later than a Roman victory at Yarmouk, and it also won't have as dramatic of butterflies the farther away you get, especially given the collapse of the Seljuk Empire. It's still a massive assumption and I wouldn't fault anyone for calling bullshit on having the Mongols show up.

When the Mongols cut through the Khwarezmids like a hot knife through butter and sack Baghdad, everyone is going to shut up and take notice. The Romans will almost certainly do what they do best when a large steppe horde shows up, give them money and say, "please go away". The Mongols will probably be okay with this as they didn't even want to invade the Khwarezmids in the first place. The Crusader duchies will probably do the same, and be enthusiastic about the Mongols BTFOing the Muslims. This might change when the Il-khanate becomes Muslim, but in OTL the Il-khanate was still relatively religiously tolerant even after the conversion like with their protection of Christian Armenia. In fact, this may be an excellent opportunity for the Crusader duchies to further weaken Roman Authority over the Levant as they turn more towards the Il-khanate.

A war between the Romans and the Il-khanate could be a disaster, but I don't think it would be. Historically, the Mongols were shit when it came to fighting Heavy Cavalry and European Castles. It's why they got BTFO during the Second Mongol Invasion of Hungary and why the Templars only lost three men at the Battle of Legnica. So long as the Roman Emperor at the time of the war isn't massively unpopular and undercut by his own generals something like Manzikert shouldn't happen as the Romans routinely dealt with the feigned flight strategy that the steppe nomads employed and fielded some spectacular heavy cavalry with the cataphracts.

Things will get a lot more chaotic once the Il-khanate collapses.

>>59894243
>>59878499
Greece supples 6.8% of europes refined petroleum, if you exclude Russia

>>59894324
After the fall of the Il-khanate, you're going to get a patchwork of Turcomen, Persian, Mongol, and Arab states that will be looking to legitimize themselves. Taking the Holy Land will almost certainly be seen by more than a handful of them as the righteous path and will likely turn Syria into a warzone. Some of the several hundred year old Crusader states (now complete with Christian pluralities if not majorities) will likely fall to the Muslim Jihad, spooking other dukes and princes into calling upon the Romans to save them. The Romans will probably be able to defeat the Jihadists, but they may be slow about it. Allowing the Crusaders to be defeated and then evicting the Muslim conquerors provides the Romans with the perfect opportunity to conquer the Levant and incorporate it directly into the Empire. Egypt will almost certainly attempt to resist this by bolstering Jerusalem, to keep the Romans out. They probably succeed, but there's going to be no evicting the Romans from Syria.

All throughout this period, the flow of money, goods, and ideas are going to mean the Roman humanism and science will blossom and spread throughout the Mediterranean leading to an earlier Italian Renaissance that spreads throughout much of the Mediterranean.

Because of the power of the Roman Empire, it's easy to imagine a situation where Roman and Hungarian marriage alliances contribute to Hungary waffling between the Latin Rite and the Greek Rite. This could result in a Hungarian king leveraging his relations with the West and East to create the Patriarch of Buda as a sort of compromise by the Pope and the Patriarch to minimize the authority the other has over Hungary. If support for Autocephaly spreads in the West you might see the Avignon Papacy birth a French Catholic Church with a Patriarch of Avignon and eventually a Patriarch of Aachen. The spread of national churches would weaken the Papacy but also erase the possibility of anything like the Reformation happening.

File: The-Emissaries.jpg (125 KB, 956x1200)

125 KB JPG

>>59871540
> Orthodog

>>59894903
That's obviously a roman cathound.

>>59894915
I couldn't find any dogs in Orthodox garb

>>59895079
You dishonor your family.

>>59893673
But what be the empire extension if we go by non manzikert but the Komnenoi stil estabilsh themselves (Isaac doesn't abdicates I presume), Would he have anyother territorial ambition orther than to expel the normans ffrom southern italy and deal with the pechnegs?

>>59893673
>>59894032
>>59894324
>>59894634
What about the empire itself? How do you think it might change internally in this new timeline? The thematic system was already showing cracks in the 11th century. Could it be saved? Should it? Or could something better replace it? Could the Romans EVER come up with a stable succession system?

>>59897817
How did the mordern European kingdoms resolved their succession issues.

I don't imagine many people would try to replace the windsors?

>>59896938
>>59897817
Isaac and the Anatolian aristocracy are going to be coming to blows sooner or later. Taxes need to be raised to support the army (Isaac can't steal from the Church again), Normans need to be resettled from Italy into Anatolia (much like Justinian II's relocation of the Slavs) and reform needs to be brought to the Anatolian military. When a revolt breaks out, the Anatolians will be undercut by the same decadence and rot that had been undercutting the Empire, while Isaac will be fielding a battle hardened army, likely supplemented by Normans he's promised lands and titles. As a result, he will come down on the Anatolians like a tone of bricks, breaking the spine of the Anatolian aristocracy and allowing for the reorganization of central Anatolia and the raising of taxes to support the army. This isn't going to be a throwing out of the theme system, but rather a temporary revival of it during its heyday. The raids by the Turcomen will make this stick, at least temporarily. The Turcomen raids into Anatolia, which will only grow in severity once Arslan dies and the Seljuk empire fragments, will force the remiliterization of the Central Anatolian Themes as like the Arab raiders of old, these Turcomen raiders will be a mobile threat that can quickly push deep into Anatolia, bypassing the military frontier. This will extend the life of the Theme system until a future Komenoi Emperor can restructure the army into a profession standing army, which will happen when the same rot that had weakened inner Anatolia resurfaces once the Turcomen threat ebbs after they begin to concentrate their energies more on targeting the Crusader states.

>>59894324
>When the Mongols cut through the Khwarezmids
This honestly may be a bigger case of alien space bats than the Mongols seeing how they Khwarezmids only rose to power just before the Mongol invasion over a century after Manzikert. Even if you assume Seljuk collapse was inevitable the idea that it would reunite under the Khwarezmids seems like a strong assumption. Granted I still think it is a moot point as a still divided Persia or recently united under another dynasty would still be easy prey for the Mongols or a hypothetical replacement.

>>59899663
Dealing with the Normans, the Hungarians, the Anatolian aristocracy, the Pechnegs, and Turcomen raids will likely take up most of Isaac and his immediate successors time, and but after the alternate Crusades, things will begin to look a lot better for the Empire. With control over Egypt and the Levant at least nominally restored you are going to see Constantinople swell in size as a result of increased grain shipments from Egypt. More people means more taxes and more innovation. The size of many of the coastal cities of the Empire are going to swell once they regain access to North African grain, which is going to help fund the creation of a professional standing army once the Theme system begins to fail again.

The professional Roman Army will draw less from the provincials of Anatolia and more from the booming population centers along the coast which will undercut the new Anatolian aristocracy that emerges after Isaac and strengthen the Absolutist authority of the Emperor, especially after gunpowder and the canon become more widespread. The Roman Basileus will have an absolutist Monarchy that would make Louis XIV of France jealous. Castles and forts in inner Anatolia and the Balkans will be demolished while massive fortresses are built along the Danube, Central Italian, and Syrian frontiers. The Aristocracy will be cowed and lack any real power as was the case in the early 11th century. While this isn't going to radically change the succession system, it will make it more stable as an Aristocracy that could challenge the Emperor won't exist and there will be constant competition for Imperial titles and bureaucratic position.

If the Romans can successfully become a gunpowder empire like the Ottomans did, they will be starting from a considerably better position than the Ottomans. If it happens, Crusader Egypt's days are numbered, and Italy is going to become a bloodbath with the Germans and the Romans trying to evict the other from the peninsula.

>>59899937

The hungarians might even go orthodox this time, they have been playing off western catholic and orthodox influences aganist for over a century before converting.

>>59899826
you're probably right there. Though I think a divided Persia might actually be safer from the Mongols. If the Ghurids lose control over Persia to several smaller Persian and Turkish states, with none being a strong as the Khwarezmids then they will very likely be more accommodating to the Mongols as they will lack the hubris of the Khwarazm Shahs. Not being slaughtered by the Mongols would really help the Middle East.
But if the Ghurids (or an alternate conqueror of the Ghaznavids) remain in control of Persia, then I can see them making the same mistake as the Khwarezmid. If that happens then you are probably going to see the Mongols direct a significant amount of their force into India, and with a collapsing Ghurid sultanate they may be significantly more successful. Just imagining the Mongols sacking Delhi is horrifying.

Speaking of Byzantine alternate history, what if the Crusaders had campaigned against the Turks in Anatolia like Constantinople had been hoping for instead of against the Levantine Arabs?

>>59894324
Honestly if you have a a timeline where Romans are playing with Mongols and not include a giant ass siege of Constantinople, what is even the point?

Would a Roman resurgence not effect the mindset of other national leaders? Would Imperialism not fall out of favour?

>>59898808
Other kingdoms had clearly established succession laws and traditions they stuck to. Succession in Rome was always an ad hoc thing from Augustus to Palaiologos. The closest they got to an actual system was porphyrogeniture, but that was never that entrenched, and it was kind of a silly idea anyway.

Part of the problem was that other medieval kingdoms were pretty decentralized, so there was a far greater check on someone trying to overturn the norms and depose the rightful king. Rome had all the power concentrated in the hands of the emperor, and consequently it didn't matter how one became emperor. Once you were there you were scot-free and could do what you wanted.

bump

>>59899937
>>59900638

If the mongols conquer persia and mesopotamia with less of a bloodbath wouldn't they put this new found manpower against this more mordern ERE?

Or would genghis be more likely to just try to open trade with them. I think the khan would find it more profitable then to lose his horde on the walls of Constantinople. That by your scenario is defended by early cannons.

>>59909078
>>59902853
Genghis didn't set out to conquer Persia until the Khwarezmids killed his representatives, his main goal was always China. He'd almost certainly be happy to accept tribute from the Romans. Conflict between the Romans and the Golden Horde could happen later on if an Emperor gets tired of paying tribute and sees the dissolution of the Il-khanate as a sign of weakness in the Mongols, leading to him insulting the Golden Horde by ending tribute. A Mongol invasion of the Balkans would be pretty tough on the countryside and the peasant farmers, but I foresee such an invasion going more like the Second Mongol Invasion of Hungary than the First.

>>59909368
good

>>59909368
Hey senpai.
Thanks for the breakdown and your posts in this thread. They're fascinating to read. Unironic good luck with your degree.

Bumping for interest, this is a neat thread.

Would the Americas be Roman provinces?

>>59894528
>Greece supples 6.8% of europes refined petroleum, if you exclude Russia
>6.8%
>If you ignore a major supplier
So very little.

>>59909368
What about Timur? Granted, he's much harder to justify with all the butterflies, but I imagine at least some Timur-like Central Asian conquerors will still rise up, and they could have a much more negative view on a major Christian power in the middle east than the Mongols did.

>>59915997
Nah, they're very unlikely to be able to take part colonization. Best case, if they manage to take back Egypt they could drill down into Africa, take over Sudan and the horn of Africa.

One of the more interesting questions to me is, if the Byzies roughly follow the Ottoman geopolitical history in the middle east, what happens to Mecca? Do the Romans fuck it up, or claim stewardship? What happens to the Caliphate? Do the Persians grab it? Does the Roman Emperor try to claim the office for himself? Could Islam become even more schismatic?

>>59871442
Modern Turkey is a rich and self-sustainable geographic region with one of the most important strategic positions in the world. A modern Byzantine Empire with a competent dynasty would be a great power rivalling Russia

>>59916620
So early on in it's history so many defeats might make a lot of people loose confidence in mainstream Islam. It would not spread as readily, it would be more divided. Possibly even the Nestorian Church might make a substantial resurgence in Mesopotamia and spreading down into Arabia.

>>59916702
It's not that early in its history, The Ottomans only got there in the 16th century.

>>59916542
>but I imagine at least some Timur-like Central Asian conquerors will still rise up

If someone like Timur does appear and does go West, you probably won't be seeing an analogue of the Battle of Ankara. The Romans are unlikely to make the same mistake as the Ottomans and demand tribute from a Timurid vassal and provoke a war. Even more than that they won't need to rapidly move an army from besieging Constantinople to Central Anatolia. That means no exhausted army and no Turcomen auxiliaries that would defect to Timur. In addition, we just have to look at the strong performance of Prince Lazarovic’s knights at Ankara to see that the Timurid army isn't going to be able to deal well with Roman heavy cavalry. The battle might be a Roman defeat, but given the capacity of Lazarovic’s forces to retreat, the Romans are unlikely to be annihilated by the Mongols and would be able to retreat to a fortress to regroup and continue the war which would be very costly to the Timurids or cede some territory and pay the Timurids to go away.

While it is distinctly possible that a Timur analogue rises to prominence in Central Asia, it's probably even more likely that one doesn't. And even if one does, they may be more inclined to look to the East rather than conquer Iran. The Chagatai Khanate had very little interest in Iran, and most of the strong Khans were more focused on trying to unify their realm with dreams of pushing eastwards into Mongolia and eventually, China. Timur's very specific rise to power was incredibly improbable (making it all the more fascinating).

An alternative outcome is an Islamic Chagatai Khanate conquering the Oirats, conquering Mongolia, and trying to invade the Ming analogue that arises after the fall of the Yuan. China is wealthier than Iran and it's a more important to the Mongols. Even Timur tried to conquer it later in his reign.

>>59917247
If a military genius like Timur doesn't appear, unification of Central Asia and Iran under a single ruler is unlikely, and if a military genius like Timur does appear it's just as possible that he looks to the East.

That in and of itself would be pretty fascinating. While I have my doubts about a Khanate being able to reconquer China in the early 15th century (the Ming were doing pretty well at this point) the idea of a Mughal-esque China is fascinating. An Islamic dynasty struggling to make the Mandate of Heaven fit with Islamic theology would be incredibly interesting. Who would govern the China while the Emperor is off on Haj? Mongolia would likely become Sunni and Islam would spread more in China, but there's no way could eclipse the Buddhism in China.

A Chinese version of Emperor Akbar would probably be very fondly remembered by the Chinese, and I could see him working out a way to make the Mandate of Heaven work with Islam, but many of his successors will likely destroy the goodwill he earns their dynasty by trying to force Islam on the Chinese, raising taxes to intolerable levels, and trying to engage in religious wars against Vietnam, Tibet, and Japan.

>>59900702
Why would they have ever done that?

>>59900702
If Urban II isn't as successful in rousing people to the Crusades, I could see this happening. It probably means that the Empire regains control of most of, if not all of Anatolia, but it also means that the Empire is going to move towards fuedalization much more rapidly. The Latins that receive land in Anatolia will eventually become a big problem for the Empire.
>>59917381
because that's what the Emperor originally wanted. He just wanted some Western mercenaries to help him out and he ended up getting a lot more than he bargained for.

>>59917458
But why would they do that when there were rich cities in dire need of liberation?

>>59917571
because those cities aren't in dire need of liberation and they aren't being paid to do that.

>>59917598
>those cities aren't in dire need of liberation
They are in as much need as those of central Anatolia

>they aren't being paid to do that
They aren't being paid at all

>>59917628
>They are in as much need as those of central Anatolia
That's not even remotely true. Anatolia is majority Christian and has only been under Islamic yoke for a few decades.
>They aren't being paid at all
of course the massive Crusader army of OTL wasn't being paid by the Romans. If it's a much smaller force like the mercenaries that Alexios wanted they'd get an initial payment up front and then receive land and titles later.

>>59917247
>While it is distinctly possible that a Timur analogue rises to prominence in Central Asia, it's probably even more likely that one doesn't.
I sort of see Timur (from an amateurish stance admittedly) as part of a pattern of Turkic/Mongol warlords rising up from the steppes and settling into the middle eastern heartland. Tughril, Timur, Babur, Nader Shah, even the Kwarezms and the Ilkhanate. I find it likely such characters and entities would continue to rise up.

On the other hand, Timur' specific absence means also the gunpowder empires would likely never rise which means a colossally different history of Iran and India.

>>59918670
The pattern certainly exists. I only meant the the handful of Turko-Mongol warlords that forged great empires and conquered Iran are vastly outnumbered by the warlords that took an arrow to the gut or were thrown from their horses and died without accomplishing much. If alt-Timur's rise is delayed by a decade or so, then Iran might be unified under a native dynasty and Alt-Timur's Empire could end up looking more like that of the Hephthalites than the Timurid empire of our own.