AHC: Christian Asia Minor, Islamic Iberia

[History Learner]

Basically, achieve the reverse of what happened OTL (or maintain the Middle Ages dynamic, if you prefer lol). Historically, the Turks ultimately broke Byzantine rule in Anatolia and gradually converted the region, ultimately birthing the the Ottoman Empire while in Iberia the petty Christian Kingdoms were able to stage the Reconquista. To make the challenge easier-and because of my own affection for the aforementioned petty Kingdoms-the borders in Iberia have some leeway. For example, something like this:

As for Anatolia, something like this at least (can be more!):

 

[Circle of Willis]

Perhaps a more successful Anatolian campaign by Manuel I Komnenos (either winning or altogether avoiding Myriokephalon and eventually cracking Turkish power in central Anatolia) coupled with there being no coup against his son, Alexios II, thereby butterflying away the 4th Crusade; and an Almohad victory in the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, knocking the Christian Spanish back to the northern half of the peninsula, after which they remain strong enough to keep Andalusia Islamic?

 

[Buba]

For Anatolia - easiest is butterflying away Manzikert.
But there are many possible POD's, latest being the Ottoman Civil War after their being crushed at Ankara in 1402. Imagine a lucky and crazy-warrior type of Byzantine ruler.

 

[stevep]

Plenty of options for Byzantium to avoid the initial Turkish onslaught or recover from it. The former might butterfly or drastically change the crusades as there's no call from the eastern emperor for aid from Rome and the west.

In that case does the internal drivers for crusades in the west get re-directed elsewhere - say to Iberia or now go directly towards Palestine? The latter could well mean clashes with a successful eastern Rome as it also has desires in that area. Not to mention a powerful eastern empire might seek to regain its possessions in S Italy, even without the Normans raiding their lands as an incentive.

Of course defeating the Seljuks doesn't mean Anatolia is safe in the longer term. Even a well organised and powerful east is going to face serious problems if we still get Genghis organising the Mongol juggernaut, as well as later central Asian empires like Tamerlane. Not to mention more organised states such as Iran or possibly Egypt.

In terms of a surviving Muslim dominated Iberia I suspect that is more difficult as long as Christianity remains strong in western/central Europe. Its so far from other centres of Muslim power and so close to Christian ones that its seen as a threat and a possible target for expansion.

 

[ATP]

For Anatolia - easiest is butterflying away Manzikert.
But there are many possible POD's, latest being the Ottoman Civil War after their being crushed at Ankara in 1402. Imagine a lucky and crazy-warrior type of Byzantine ruler.

Manzikert - Byzantine troops first were betrayed by their hired ligh calvary,later they forget to properly use frank mercaneries,and in the end most of byzantine troops widraw becouse of betreyal of their commander.
Avoid even one of that,and you have draw.
Avoid 2 or all,and Byzantine won.

 

[Buba]

@ATP - true. Manzikert as a draw or minor Roman defeat changes everything.
Of course - a like disaster can happen sometime later - but in OTL it was Manzikert which produced a permanent change in the geopolitical setting.

 

[History Learner]

Perhaps a more successful Anatolian campaign by Manuel I Komnenos (either winning or altogether avoiding Myriokephalon and eventually cracking Turkish power in central Anatolia) coupled with there being no coup against his son, Alexios II, thereby butterflying away the 4th Crusade; and an Almohad victory in the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, knocking the Christian Spanish back to the northern half of the peninsula, after which they remain strong enough to keep Andalusia Islamic?

I like this, although to reduce butterfly effect you could also go with the 1176 Battle of Myriokephalon. Also comes with the added (And cool, imo) bonus of Christian and Hellenized Turks in the long run; imagine an Ottoman Dynasty as the eventual ruling family of the Empire.

 

[S'task]

Of course defeating the Seljuks doesn't mean Anatolia is safe in the longer term. Even a well organised and powerful east is going to face serious problems if we still get Genghis organising the Mongol juggernaut, as well as later central Asian empires like Tamerlane. Not to mention more organised states such as Iran or possibly Egypt.

Even if the region ended up conquered by the Mongols, that wouldn't matter. The goal of the OP isn't for Byzantine to survive, it's for the region to remain CHRISTIAN. For all the horrors the Mongols inflicted in their invasion, one of the things they just did not give a fuck about was religion, and they didn't enforce any religious requirements upon their conquered peoples. As such, even if the Mongols conquer Anatolia, which I would note is actually further they went in the OTL, they're not going to displace the Christians there, in fact, some of them might instead convert to Christianity as opposed to the OTL where they converted to Islam. You might see a Christian Golden Horde or IlKhanate as opposed to the Islamic ones we had in the OTL... that in and of itself then ends up with serious butterflies for the wider region.

 

[stevep]

Even if the region ended up conquered by the Mongols, that wouldn't matter. The goal of the OP isn't for Byzantine to survive, it's for the region to remain CHRISTIAN. For all the horrors the Mongols inflicted in their invasion, one of the things they just did not give a fuck about was religion, and they didn't enforce any religious requirements upon their conquered peoples. As such, even if the Mongols conquer Anatolia, which I would note is actually further they went in the OTL, they're not going to displace the Christians there, in fact, some of them might instead convert to Christianity as opposed to the OTL where they converted to Islam. You might see a Christian Golden Horde or IlKhanate as opposed to the Islamic ones we had in the OTL... that in and of itself then ends up with serious butterflies for the wider region.

Very true about the Mongols and religion, at least in the early decades. That is actually quite possible, although a fanatical Muslim like Tamerlain would be a different matter. There is some suggestion that Sartaq, the son of Batu the founder of the Golden Horde, may have favoured Christianity but he died quickly with at least hints that his uncle Berke who had converted to Islam was responsible for his early death. If there was an actual coup and it had been defeated you may have seen a drastically different path for both the western Mongol states but that's a totally different POD.

The Mongols did actually reduce the Anatolian Turks to tribune status I believe but were too busy fighting with the Mamluks and the Golden Horde to directly control it for any real period of time.

Steve

 

[Circle of Willis]

I like this, although to reduce butterfly effect you could also go with the 1176 Battle of Myriokephalon. Also comes with the added (And cool, imo) bonus of Christian and Hellenized Turks in the long run; imagine an Ottoman Dynasty as the eventual ruling family of the Empire.

Yeah, that's more or less what I was getting at. I think it was too late to simply expel the Turks from Anatolia by the late 12th century, so assimilating them would have been the Byzantines' best bet. Though I'm not sure there'd be a specific Ottoman dynasty at all, even a Hellenized and Christian one, with an 1176 POD - IIRC Osman's own dad Ertugrul wasn't even born yet, and would never have been given holdings on the Byzantine frontier if the people who did that (the Seljuk Turks of Rum) have already been defeated early. Some longer-surviving branch of the Rum Seljuks or the more established Artuqids seem likelier candidates for ascension under the Byzantines' wing, IMO.

That said, I don't doubt there's room for a Turkish dynasty in the future if the circumstances align to allow it. The Byzantines have had Arab emperors before - Nikephoros the Logothete comes to mind - so what would be the problem with a Turkish-blooded one down the road, so long as he's Christian and a fluent Greek speaker (as he almost certainly would be two or three centuries after a Myriokephalon POD)?

 

[stevep]

Yeah, that's more or less what I was getting at. I think it was too late to simply expel the Turks from Anatolia by the late 12th century, so assimilating them would have been the Byzantines' best bet. Though I'm not sure there'd be a specific Ottoman dynasty at all, even a Hellenized and Christian one, with an 1176 POD - IIRC Osman's own dad Ertugrul wasn't even born yet, and would never have been given holdings on the Byzantine frontier if the people who did that (the Seljuk Turks of Rum) have already been defeated early. Some longer-surviving branch of the Rum Seljuks or the more established Artuqids seem likelier candidates for ascension under the Byzantines' wing, IMO.

That said, I don't doubt there's room for a Turkish dynasty in the future if the circumstances align to allow it. The Byzantines have had Arab emperors before - Nikephoros the Logothete comes to mind - so what would be the problem with a Turkish-blooded one down the road, so long as he's Christian and a fluent Greek speaker (as he almost certainly would be two or three centuries after a Myriokephalon POD)?

I have seen some suggestions that George_Maniakes, the famous general of the early 11thC was of at least partly Turkish stock - although this was before the main invasion under the Seljuks and he made a bid for the throne, albeit ultimately unsuccessful. Think at least one other dynasty have had non- Greek - by ethnicity - origins.

 

[Buba]

Mongols in Anatolia - no problem. They got to Syria, so ...

I have seen some suggestions that George_Maniakes, the famous general of the early 11thC was of at least partly Turkish stock - although this was before the main invasion under the Seljuks and he made a bid for the throne, albeit ultimately unsuccessful. Think at least one other dynasty have had non- Greek - by ethnicity - origins.

There is a theory that Heraclius was of Armenian stock.
An emperor had the moniker "Isaurian" - clear indication of ethnicity.

 

[stevep]

Mongols in Anatolia - no problem. They got to Syria, so ...

There is a theory that Heraclius was of Armenian stock.
An emperor had the moniker "Isaurian" - clear indication of ethnicity.

That was the dynasty I was thinking of but too lazy to check further.

Considering he was in charge of Carthage before he challenged for the purple that shows how diverse the dark age/medieval world could be.

 

[History Learner]

I can foresee the Byzantines long term undergoing a Basil II style renaissance, taking the place of the Ottomans as far as Balkan expansion. Perhaps, too, they can come to puppet/annex the Crusader states in the Levant and then fulfill Manuel's OTL goals for re-conquering Egypt. In essence, restoring the Pre-Islam borders of the Empire, sans the Justinian conquests in the West albeit with much of the rest of the Balkans under their influence?

Such, combined with no Spain, brings up a very important question: what happens with the New World? Obviously, without the economic incentive of Muslims controlling Constantinople nor the Levant, such removes a very big "push" factor that led to the New World.

 

[Buba]

New World gets explored from the north starting from the early XVI century onward.

 

[History Learner]

New World gets explored from the north starting from the early XVI century onward.

By whom and what shape does it take? While the fishing and timber opportunities are large, they might not be as much of a "pull" factor as Gold, Tobacco and Sugar, for example. On the other hand, it could lead to a general adoption of English settler colonialism as opposed to the "smash and grab" style displayed by the Spanish, historically.

 

[Buba]

France (whatever shape it takes ITTL), maybe independent Viscaya and/or Aquitane and/or Brittany? Maybe a Galicia? Other suspects would be polities from the British isles and North Sea coast.
I suspect that The Spanish Style was largely brought about by the Castillians conquering existing states and not hunter-gatherer tribes. Maybe the British style is used, or maybe the French and Dutch approach (also used by English by HBC) ...

 

[History Learner]

France (whatever shape it takes ITTL), maybe independent Viscaya and/or Aquitane and/or Brittany? Other suspects would be polities from the British isles and North Sea coast.
The Spanish style was brought about by the Castillians conquering existing states and not hunter-gatherer tribes. Maybe the British style is used, or maybe the French and Dutch approach (also used by English by HBC) ...

The biggest issue with such is the intense rivalry between the English and French, as well as the later being absorbed into the HRE's affairs. On the other hand, there is no Spain here to menace France nor England; perhaps the French are content to only take a few colonies in the America while dominating Europe while the English can settle the Americas to their heart's content?

 

[Buba]

The biggest issue with such is the intense rivalry between the English and French,

Too far from the POD as to be relevant.
E.g. there might not be a united "France" ITTL. Or an "England".

 

[History Learner]

Too far from the POD as to be relevant.
E.g. there might not be a united "France" ITTL. Or an "England".

I left the PoD vague, admittedly, to allow for full creativity but if we go with the one of 1176 I suggested upthread (Byzantine victory over Turks, Almohad victory in the 1200s against the Iberians), than by that point you already have recognizable France and England, both in control over most of their OTL territory.