Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

[Eparkhos]

WI: Andronikos II killed at Tralleis? - Part II

I'm going to zoom out a bit to cover broader trends because I don't want to get stuck in the minutia.

Geopolitical:
- In the Balkans, the Byzantines will be the dominant power from the early 14th century onward. Historically, the Bulgarians were extremely weak from the late 13th-early 14th centuries and could have been dominated by any emperor other than Andronikos II (I can list 4 ways the Byzantines could've de facto vassalized the Bulgarians from 1280-1320 off the top of my head). Whether this leads to vassalization or outright conquest is more up in the air, but I'm inclined to say that the most likely is increased integration until Bulgaria is a province with a different name by 1400 or so. The Serbs would be fighting a civil war at the time of PoD, and the Byzantines ought to be able to play them off of each other and expand their influence. Control over Serbia would be periodically broken by Neapolitan/Venetian/Hungarian incursions and revolt, but these would be limited in duration while the natural center of gravity for Serbia leans towards Byzantine influence and so the broader trend would be towards vassalization. The Frankokratia are doomed in the long run, not that that's much of a loss, as their main benefactor, the Neapolitans, are caught between two fires with the Byzantines and Aragonese/Papal States, and probably swallowed up or made provinces in all but name, again by 1400. As an interesting side note, a Naples bogged down fighting the Byzantines/Aragonese won't be able to influence the Hungarian succession, so the Hungarian throne goes to either Bavaria or Bohemia-Poland and the Hungarian elective monarchy never gets off the ground. Interesting knock-ons, no?

- In Anatolia, the Byzantines had an excellent crop of leadership, and so long as the central government doesn't fuck with the Lakharnes system everything should work out relatively well. The Byzantines would conquer the coastal rim and parts of the interior of Anatolia, while the interior would be filled with a bunch of warring petty beyliks that can be safely played off of each other to maintain Byzantine hegemony. Cilicia and Armenia are likely out of reach, just like Trebizond, but the Crimea might be taken as part of a trade war against the Genoese, to secure resources or project power over the Black Sea, all of which are good reasons to go for the low-hanging fruit.

 

[Eparkhos]

WI: Andronikos II killed at Tralleis? - Part III

Social:
- The Byzantine nobility became increasingly entrenched throughout this period IOTL, as the state grew smaller it became weaker and more malleable by the pronoiars. This won't happen ITTL, but the nobility's power will likely remain constant--none of the Palaiologoi ever showed interest in curbing their power--just reduced in comparison to the power of the expanding state. The result will be something like an undetected cancer, metastasizing unbeknown to anyone else. The likely assimilation of vassalized Frankokratia will also introduce or expand ideas of noble sovereignty that nothing good can come of.
- The rural peasantry will be much better off, with less competition for land and more overall bargaining power in relation to the nobility because of the lack of refugees/murderous ghazi raids. The radicalism of the OTL Palaiologian Civil War won't form, instead the existing trends of tension between upper and lower class fluctuating with time continuing. Population pressures will be relieved by migration to new conquests in Anatolia. On a side note, the quality of life for the herding peasantry in the Balkans will be worsened by
- The influence of the merchant/middle class will increase dramatically. With less Italian influence, a home-grown merchant class will expand to fill parts of the void, generating wealth and keeping it within the bounds of the Empire at a greater rate than OTL. Historically, the middle/merchant class was the basis of state recruitment, and so I expect that the overall quality of administration will increase with a wider pool of talent to draw from. This increasing influence will likely cause increased resentment of the Italians/Armenians/Jews, which will have significant effects outside the Empire.

Economy:
- Agriculture will remain the dominant economic sector, and overall production will be expanded because of more farmland, increasing state revenues and influence. Of course, there will still be significant gaps in production/taxation because of the pronoiai, but these will be a limiting, rather than halting, factor.
- The currency devaluation of OTL will be avoided, as the Byzantines will have a better overall economy, access to gold mines in the Chalkidike and Thrakesion and no shortage of hard foreign currency for exchange. The result is Byzantine merchants have higher buying power and can be more competitive with outside rivals, as well as the lower classes maintaining their buying power and not being driven towards poverty and radicalism.
- The expansion of the trading class increases overall economic prosperity and wealth, as well as Byzantine soft-power influence across the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean.
- In the early 14th century, grain surplusses produced in Anatolia, Crimea and the Balkans can be sold westward at great profit; once the Black Death hits, this means that the Byzantines will be worse hit, but will recover along lines roughly similar to what they had before, with the influence of the lower classes expanding even more.
- The expansion of trade with the Anatolian plateau--be it grain, wine, or, most likely, sheep and textiles--may result in better relations along the frontier, but this is neither here nor there.

 

[WolfBear]

Lack of options. It was the communists or cleaving to the only other viable option.

Germany didn't push for Weimar, it was formed out of the collapsed monarchy by liberal politicians and nobles who thought they could get a better deal at Versailles by forming a republic instead. Turns out there didn't work, so lots of political instability resulted and the Kapp Putsch was attempted. The Allies didn't want to deal with such a regime, nor did the German workers support it, so Germany was stuck with Weimar and it muddled along for a while.

The German middle class went along with the best of a bad series of option, pretty much the same with every other class.

You mean that the Allies and German workers didn't want to deal with the kind of regime that the Kapp Putsch would have produced?

Also, what about this question of mine? :

What do you think that it would take to break up the Franco-Russian alliance in the absence of Communism?

 

[History Learner]

WI: Andronikos II killed at Tralleis?

In 1284, Andronikos II campaigned against Turkic bands in Thracesia, culminating in Andronikos' defeat (or draw, sources differ) at Tralleis. What if he had been killed instead?

- The throne is taken by Michael IX, who is only 7 years old at this point. Michael's parents are both dead, leaving the logical regent as Patriarch Gregory II. Gregory is somewhat popular, but he has little support from the army and bureaucracy, which gives Constantine Palaiologos, Michael's uncle, to elbow his way into the regency. Constantine appears to have been a good general and had the support of the army and much of the common people, so the likely outcome is either Constantine displacing Gregory or forming a power-sharing agreement with Constantine running the army and Gregory running the state.

- Militarily, the Byzantines will be in a better place than OTL. The navy has yet to be disbanded and so Constantinople can control its own shorelines and isn't dependent on the Italians. The Sicilian Vespers has already started, so the Neapolitans won't be a factor for several decades.
- Constantine, and the upper ranks of the army as well, will likely be quite upset by the Turks killing Andronikos and so will launch campaigns across the Anatolian frontier to push them back. However, this won't be the most effective, as the Byzantines would be grabbing cities and valleys only for them to be overrun the second the army goes someplace else, similar to OTL efforts. However, I suspect that Constantine, or at least one of the Anatolian military governors--the connections that got Philanthropenos and Tarchaneiotes into power will remain ITTL, so the Byzantines will have several very effective generals/rulers--will cotton on to this and embrace the ideas of Constantine Lakharnes, an obscure OTL figure who proposed creating lines of forts and fortified settlements to defend and expand the frontier but was shot down because of cost. The Byzantines will successfully push back into the interior, probably pushing back to the rim of the Plateau. Philanthropenos' OTL habit of allying with some Turks against others and creating Turkish auxiliaries will probably be continued, which will help with on-the-ground control and hopefully divide the Turks against each other.
- OTL Constantine seems to have had an interest in Macedonia, and it seems possible that, with more resources, he will embark on campaigns in Europe against the Francocratia. Without Andronikos' hiring of the Catalan Company, the Latins will still be squabbling amongst each other and will lack outside support, making them easy to conquer or vassalize. The Byzantines will pick up more land, revenue, and control over the Aegean, all good.

- Economically, the Byzantines will still be struggling with expansive noble control through corrupt pronoia (tax grants). However, without refugees from Anatolia to exacerbate tensions and fuel the creation of an urban underclass, internal tensions will be reduced, and with more control over trade thanks to the surviving navy the central authorities will be able to exert themselves without being dominated by the pronoiars. However, with existing trends continuing, this will just be kicking the can down the road as the nobility tries to exert more and more influence. It will likely take some scare in the majority reign of Michael IX to disrupt this pattern....

Thoughts?
Should I keep going?

Definitely continue this! Is it inspired by the question I posed to you before?

 

[sillygoose]

You mean that the Allies and German workers didn't want to deal with the kind of regime that the Kapp Putsch would have produced?

Correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapp_Putsch

Also, what about this question of mine? :

Germany and Russia agreeing to an alliance. France is small potatoes compared to Germany and complements Russia economically much more. See today with the relatively clandestine German-Russian axis. If those countries could work together they'd dominate Europe and the rest of the countries either better get on board or get out of the way.

 

[WolfBear]

Correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapp_Putsch

Germany and Russia agreeing to an alliance. France is small potatoes compared to Germany and complements Russia economically much more. See today with the relatively clandestine German-Russian axis. If those countries could work together they'd dominate Europe and the rest of the countries either better get on board or get out of the way.

Then why didn't the Russian government agree to the Bjorko Treaty in 1905?

 

[History Learner]

Geopolitical:
- In the Balkans, the Byzantines will be the dominant power from the early 14th century onward. Historically, the Bulgarians were extremely weak from the late 13th-early 14th centuries and could have been dominated by any emperor other than Andronikos II (I can list 4 ways the Byzantines could've de facto vassalized the Bulgarians from 1280-1320 off the top of my head). Whether this leads to vassalization or outright conquest is more up in the air, but I'm inclined to say that the most likely is increased integration until Bulgaria is a province with a different name by 1400 or so.

Please expand on this more, I'm definitely interested into specifics, and it's an idea I've been playing with for my own proposed scenarios.

 

[sillygoose]

Then why didn't the Russian government agree to the Bjorko Treaty in 1905?

Franco-Russian treaty:

Treaty of Björkö - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Eparkhos]

As an interesting side note...

The succession of Andrew III of Hungary is full of potential fascinating scenarios. OTL, Charles Robert of Anjou triumphed over Wenceslaus III of Bohemia, Otto III of Bavaria and the Hungarian nobility, resulting in a period of Angevin influence across Eastern Europe, the continuance of weak m

Please expand on this more, I'm definitely interested into specifics, and it's an idea I've been playing with for my own proposed scenarios.

Andronikos' diplomatic policy in general was massively stupid, and Bulgaria is a shining example.

Bulgaria had been under Mongol domination since the 1240s, and in the late 1270s a peasant rebellion led by Ivaylo the Lettuce (yes, really) had overthrown the sitting tsar, resulting a period of anarchy that lasted into the 1320s. The missed opportunities were:

- The flight of members of the Asen dynasty to Constantinople. The Asens lived in the Empire throughout the entirety of Andronikos' reign, and nothing was done to take advantage of this windfall. At one point Nogai Khan, the relevant Mongol warlord, offered to install Ivan Asen III--Andronikos' brother-in-law and close friend--on the Bulgarian throne but Andronikos refused for unknown reasons. Any of the Asens could be used as a proxy to restore Byzantine hegemony, and this was just an infuriatingly bad decision.

- The tsar George I was driven into exile in Constantinople in 1292 after Nogai Khan invaded. Andronikos initially refused to let him even enter the Empire, then threw him in a dungeon and quite literally forgot about him for nine years, then sent him to an estate in Anatolia that was apparently so rich that George was wealthier than Andronikos' own brother and refused to return to Bulgaria when Andronikos ordered him to in 1309. Bear in mind, throughout this period George was popular in Bulgaria, the occupying Mongols were weak and distracted and there was every opportunity to invade Bulgaria and basically be treated like liberators (for a bit, anyway).

- Speaking of George, after his son Theodore--who had previously been a hostage in Constantinople, by the way--took the throne after doing the exact same thing Andronikos could have, but with fewer resources (!), Andronikos made the brilliant decision to release the father of the sitting tsar in exchange for fifteen Byzantine nobles so obscure that their names aren't even recorded. In short, he gave up an incredibly valuable hostage/bargaining chit for a bunch of literal whos.

- And again, speaking of Theodore, while he was a hostage in Constantinople he was betrothed to an unknown Palaiologina, but this betrothal was broken, again for unknown reasons, in exchange for a betrothal to a daughter of Ioannes Synadenos, a high-ranking general, which was broken again so Synadenos could ally with the Thessalians. This was a massive missed opportunity in and of itself, not considering that Theodore would later go on to war heavily against the Empire and inflict a great deal of damage, which makes it a doubly stupid decision.

- In 1305, the deposed child tsar Ivan II was sheltered by the powerful Bulgarian magnate Aldimir, who offered to revolt and install Ivan II on the throne once more, with Andronikos' choice of regent if he was given autonomy and the men and money he needed to start the revolt. Andronikos refused because he felt that the (pathetically small) costs weren't worth the reward of removing Theodore--who at this point had swore to drive the Byzantines into the sea--from the throne. Worse still, Ivan II was Andronikos' own grand-nephew, so a successful restoration could've offered a personal union between the two states if Andronikos III had died without an heir.

In short, Andronikos shit the bed so hard when it came to Bulgaria that he almost seems to have wanted to destroy his own empire. Indeed, I would describe it as one of the most awe-inspiring examples of complete and unfettered incompetence in the history of mankind. I think that an actual stuffed shirt could've done a better job of ruling than he did.

 

[WolfBear]

Franco-Russian treaty:

Treaty of Björkö - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But wouldn't that be a factor in any future attempts to create a Russo-German alliance as well? Indeed, it is this point that I was aiming at here.

 

[Eparkhos]

Definitely continue this! Is it inspired by the question I posed to you before?

To a degree, yes.

WI: Andronikos II killed at Tralleis? - Part IV:

Geopolitical:
- The 15th century is a very good century for the Byzantines. With the Latins distracted by wars in Italy/the HRE/Central Europe and no great Muslim power rising in the East (Timur is butterflied by any PoD this early), the Byzantines essentially have a free geopolitical hand, and the logical target for this is the reconquest of Anatolia. With the only outside force backing the Turks being the Cairo Mamluks, who are well past their prime by this point, the Byzantines are able to swallow up most of Anatolia piecemeal by the end of the century, with small bands of ghazis holding out in some of the more difficult regions but being unable to pose a serious challenge. Trebizond, Cilicia and Cyprus are all annexed, and all of them provide massive financial boons that further enrich the state and increase power projection. These conquests are relatively easy, but there remains a large, un/partially assimilated Turkish population throughout much of the region that takes time to 'digest', so to speak, so little effort is made to expand past the Tauruses.
- On an ideological level, the proto-Hellenism that screwed over the Byzantines from the mid-13th century onward is shaken by the de facto incorporation of the Bulgarians and Serbs, as well as renewed (successful) conflict with the Turks and borrowings from the ideologies of the ghazis, intentional or not. The Byzantines, or at least the upper classes, return to viewing themselves as The Orthodox Empire rather than The Greek Empire, restoring ideas of universal emperorship and painting themselves as the natural protector/center of Orthodox Christianity. This leads to increased efforts to influence Georgia and the Caucasus, which likely succeeds in pulling Georgia into the Byzantine orbit a la Serbia, and increased hostility towards Latins, Armenians and Muslims which definitely won't come back to bite them by making needless enemies.

NB:
This ought to go in a society section, but I'll put it here before I forget. The conquest of Anatolia and the partial assimilation of the Turks will have immense impact on Byzantine beliefs and society. As with many other 'martial minorities' in Imperial history, Hellenized Turks will have outsized influence in the army, and I can easily see a ghazi-influenced idea of being the 'Shield and Sword of Christendom' or something similar crop up and becoming gradually embraced by the upper classes in tandem with the Orthodx Hegemony ideology.

 

[History Learner]

To a degree, yes.

Please continue, and I'm honored I was able to influence you to a degree to write these posts so far because they're very informing as well as entertaining for my Byzantine/Roman-phile self. Long term projections, and I've brought it up before elsewhere when discussing other but related scenarios, what happens with Egypt? The Mamelukes are still going to decline as you note, it's rich and so a tempting target for any Constantinople based power, and available evidence suggests its still ~40% Christian at this time.

 

[ATP]

Please continue, and I'm honored I was able to influence you to a degree to write these posts so far because they're very informing as well as entertaining for my Byzantine/Roman-phile self. Long term projections, and I've brought it up before elsewhere when discussing other but related scenarios, what happens with Egypt? The Mamelukes are still going to decline as you note, it's rich and so a tempting target for any Constantinople based power, and available evidence suggests its still ~40% Christian at this time.

Yes,please continue.Till 2022,if possible.
Orthodox Empire would not only retake christian lands,but possibly annex Russia,at least part of it.They would certainly do not let Moscov shit to happen.

 

[Eparkhos]

Please continue, and I'm honored I was able to influence you to a degree to write these posts so far because they're very informing as well as entertaining for my Byzantine/Roman-phile self. Long term projections, and I've brought it up before elsewhere when discussing other but related scenarios, what happens with Egypt? The Mamelukes are still going to decline as you note, it's rich and so a tempting target for any Constantinople based power, and available evidence suggests its still ~40% Christian at this time.

1. Thanks
2. Re: Egypt, I don't think that the Byzantines will be able to conquer it. OTL, the Ottomans allowed the existing mamluk system to survive as a 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' type scenario, and even then it continually drifted away from Ottoman rule. As an entrenched Muslim bureaucracy, the mamluks would be unpalatable to the Byzantines both practically and ideologically, and removing them would be a complete nightmare that would turn Egypt into a giant money pit. There's also the fact that Byzantine relations with Oriental Christians were poor OTL and I see no reason for this to change ITTL, so the Copts won't exactly be a fifth column, especially since many have relatively high standards of living in the Mamluk system. Logistics would also be a complete pain, with men and supplies having to be hauled hundreds of miles by sea, then trucked upriver/overland through a thousand kilometers of ambivalent or hostile terrain. The most I can see is a partial conquest and brief period of occupation that ends in a withdrawal.

The most realistic outcome, I think, would be the mamluks choking on their own fat while Syria, Hejaz and Libya break away, with some rising young star, probably from one of the desert tribes, seizing Cairo and installing himself as a sultan with the power of the mamluks being seriously checked/purged. The end result is likely an Egypt intent on restoring its sphere of influence, with ample resources to do so. Or, like in a TL I haven't published yet, the Abbasid caliphs could break out of the box the Mamluks put them in and restore the caliphate in Cairo.

 

[Eparkhos]

Yes,please continue.Till 2022,if possible.
Orthodox Empire would not only retake christian lands,but possibly annex Russia,at least part of it.They would certainly do not let Moscov shit to happen.

TTL will probably be something of a Russia-screw, as without Timur the Golden Horde will survive longer and continue exerting influence/raiding in Southern Russia. I'm operating under the assumption that the Hungarian throne passes to Vaclav III or Vaclav II lives longer, resulting a brief Bohemia-Poland-Hungary from which Bohemia is expelled, creating a Polish-Hungarian union with a sejm and elective monarchy a la the PLC. The PHC will then try to keep Lithuania down, though, which means that the GH will be stronger but the Russian states will be more independent, so there's no reason to coalesce, meaning that Russia stays disunited for much longer, and so on....

 

[ATP]

TTL will probably be something of a Russia-screw, as without Timur the Golden Horde will survive longer and continue exerting influence/raiding in Southern Russia. I'm operating under the assumption that the Hungarian throne passes to Vaclav III or Vaclav II lives longer, resulting a brief Bohemia-Poland-Hungary from which Bohemia is expelled, creating a Polish-Hungarian union with a sejm and elective monarchy a la the PLC. The PHC will then try to keep Lithuania down, though, which means that the GH will be stronger but the Russian states will be more independent, so there's no reason to coalesce, meaning that Russia stays disunited for much longer, and so on....

Plausible,especially if Golden Horde survive longer.Moscov was their tool to extract taxes,and could become independent only when Golden Horde was weakened.
And Lithuania - would they remain independent? if so,they could become orthodox,and ERE ally.

 

[stevep]

To a degree, yes.

WI: Andronikos II killed at Tralleis? - Part IV:

Geopolitical:
- The 15th century is a very good century for the Byzantines. With the Latins distracted by wars in Italy/the HRE/Central Europe and no great Muslim power rising in the East (Timur is butterflied by any PoD this early), the Byzantines essentially have a free geopolitical hand, and the logical target for this is the reconquest of Anatolia. With the only outside force backing the Turks being the Cairo Mamluks, who are well past their prime by this point, the Byzantines are able to swallow up most of Anatolia piecemeal by the end of the century, with small bands of ghazis holding out in some of the more difficult regions but being unable to pose a serious challenge. Trebizond, Cilicia and Cyprus are all annexed, and all of them provide massive financial boons that further enrich the state and increase power projection. These conquests are relatively easy, but there remains a large, un/partially assimilated Turkish population throughout much of the region that takes time to 'digest', so to speak, so little effort is made to expand past the Tauruses.
- On an ideological level, the proto-Hellenism that screwed over the Byzantines from the mid-13th century onward is shaken by the de facto incorporation of the Bulgarians and Serbs, as well as renewed (successful) conflict with the Turks and borrowings from the ideologies of the ghazis, intentional or not. The Byzantines, or at least the upper classes, return to viewing themselves as The Orthodox Empire rather than The Greek Empire, restoring ideas of universal emperorship and painting themselves as the natural protector/center of Orthodox Christianity. This leads to increased efforts to influence Georgia and the Caucasus, which likely succeeds in pulling Georgia into the Byzantine orbit a la Serbia, and increased hostility towards Latins, Armenians and Muslims which definitely won't come back to bite them by making needless enemies.

NB:
This ought to go in a society section, but I'll put it here before I forget. The conquest of Anatolia and the partial assimilation of the Turks will have immense impact on Byzantine beliefs and society. As with many other 'martial minorities' in Imperial history, Hellenized Turks will have outsized influence in the army, and I can easily see a ghazi-influenced idea of being the 'Shield and Sword of Christendom' or something similar crop up and becoming gradually embraced by the upper classes in tandem with the Orthodx Hegemony ideology.

Fascinating but while such an earlier POD will butterfly Timur himself what about the possibility of another such leader emerging. Especially with the ongoing successful wars against the Turks in Anatolia both providing some excuse for jihad of some sort and also meaning the empire is wealthy and hence a lot of potential loot there. Not saying any such example would be as massively successful as Timur was, or at lethally ardent Islamic as him but quite likely there would be some such new steppe lord/horde pushing through into the region. Alternatively IIRC Timur's 1st big successes were against the Golden Horde. Without this and with the empire growing powerful and wealthy and now pretty much on its borders by the absorption of Bulgaria the Golden Horde could be more powerful and a distinct threat.

Again not saying that you will have the sort of destruction that Timur inflicted in many areas OTL but likely to have some sort of threat appearing that could at least delay any Byzantine recovery and expansion.

PS Interrupted by a phone call so see your already commented about a stronger GH lasting longer without Timur.

 

[Eparkhos]

WI: Andronikos II killed at Tralleis? - Part V:

Society/Economy:

I'm going to go over this quickly because I've already kind of mentally moved on to later in the TL.
- The expansion and incorporation of Anatolia would relief Byzantine (Greek/Serbian) population pressure by opening new land to settlers, increasing overall agriculture output and thus increasing overall quality of life among the lower agricultural classes by relieving famine risks, and improving the quality of life among the urban population by lowering food prices and likely fueling an expansion of overall urban population. This increase of urban population will increase overall economic production, as there are increased markets and opportunities for merchants/producers to support themselves, leading to the further expansion of the middle class. Speculating in commodities would generally be a waste of time, but economies of scale makes textile (read: carpets) and fine goods (read: glass, metal objects, etc.) the primary industrial goods produced, while wine and grains will be produced en masse. Pontus will probably specialize into tea/opium plantations with an outside food source to relieve need for local food production.
- The power of the centralized state will continue to increase, with the new lands parceled out between freeholders (likely all former soldiers) and Central Anatolia coming under a system of state-backed grazing similar to the Castilian meseta, which will also expand overall textile production/middle class. However, this is only an expansion relative to the power of the regional nobility, rather than an actual curbing of noble power, and as the ever-expanding state will increase the influence of the middle class at their expense, the nobility will become more and more pissed off towards the state as time goes on.
- The conquest of non-Orthodox lands will change the Byzantine ethnic/religious hierarchy. At the top are Orthodox Greeks, the dominant ethnic group, then Orthodox TURKS/BULGARIANS/SERBS, Tzakones, Goths, etc., then Armenians/Latins, then Muslim Turks. This is unlikely to be formally entrenched a la the millet system, but it does create an incentive for some Turks (almost all urbanized) to convert to Orthodoxy, dividing a state-supporting Turkish population from a broader, ambivalent-to-hostile Turkish population. It also does nothing but alienate the rural Turkish population and most Armenians, essentially creating a large population of restive subjects throughout the East (cough cough).
- I imagine that Byzantine monasticism will continue along its 13th century course, with Hesychasim being a brief schism that gets papered over, with monasteries functioning as major market centers and centers of social life throughout the countryside, likely functioning as an alternative to the manorial estates of OTL's 14th-15th century.
EDIT:
- High culture/art will undergo a major flowering, as the rising middle class commissions art to display their wealth/ape the existing nobility. Following existing trends, this will be expressed through iconographic art, painting and murals, with iconography going down a more Russian-esque course without the rise of 'eclectical' painting in the Crete school. There will also be an increase in monasteries being founded, resulting in a feedback loop as monastic centers increase market reach into the countryside, which in turn creates more wealth for the middle class, and so on.

- On a final note that should probably go under the military section, the Byzantines will make some use of gunpowder weapons, but not completely embrace them like the Ottomans OTL--except for the navy, which becomes increasingly important as a means of projecting power/maintaining supply/communication to Anatolia, and modernizes to counter the Italians/corsairs--because why bother? They've been beating the shit out of the beyliks/Caucasian statelets (their only real/frequent enemies at this point), so clearly their existing army is fine. A string of easy victories lets the Byzantine army grow complacent and ossified, based on pre-gunpowder weapons and light cavalry recruited from Turkish and Vlach minorities, all while their geopolitcal situation changes beneath their feet....

....

In short, the period from roughly 1350 to 1525 is a golden age that lays the foundations for a coming downfall.

 

[Eparkhos]

Fascinating but while such an earlier POD will butterfly Timur himself what about the possibility of another such leader emerging. Especially with the ongoing successful wars against the Turks in Anatolia both providing some excuse for jihad of some sort and also meaning the empire is wealthy and hence a lot of potential loot there. Not saying any such example would be as massively successful as Timur was, or at lethally ardent Islamic as him but quite likely there would be some such new steppe lord/horde pushing through into the region. Alternatively IIRC Timur's 1st big successes were against the Golden Horde. Without this and with the empire growing powerful and wealthy and now pretty much on its borders by the absorption of Bulgaria the Golden Horde could be more powerful and a distinct threat.

Again not saying that you will have the sort of destruction that Timur inflicted in many areas OTL but likely to have some sort of threat appearing that could at least delay any Byzantine recovery and expansion.

PS Interrupted by a phone call so see your already commented about a stronger GH lasting longer without Timur.

The pre-Timur trend in Central Asia was towards increasing decentralization as the post-Mongol system collapses, and without his (implausible) rise to power I see no reason why this would change. The result is probably a thunderdome/crab-bucket like period where regional warlords fight each other, with anyone capable of uniting them being jumped on before he can get the power to do so. The population of the region will suffer greatly, driving migration into North India which helps prop up the Delhi Sultanate, and worsening infrastructure which only further makes the region worse.

Re: The Golden Horde threatening the Byzantines, I think that the Golden Horde's attention will be more focused on Poland-Hungary, as the two states would have ideological, economic and social reasons for conflict (Sword of Islam v. "Crusader" nobility", competition for land, grain and population, control of resources in Carpathians, constant slave raids creating a hatred across all levels of Polish-Hungarian society and a pro-raiding, pro-slavery culture dominating the GH) that will keep them at each other's throats pretty much constantly. The most issues I can see between Constantinople and Saray are raids across the Bulgarian frontier that are easier/cheaper to deal with through forts and themes rather than all-out war, naval conflict around Crimea and competing influence in the Caucasus.

The displacement of Turks from Anatolia will create population pressure in the region and embed no small amount of hatred towards the Byzantines, fueling the ghazi mentality, but I don't think this will coalesce into an alt-Timur. Many of the resources needed to do so will be sucked off into regional wars in Central Asia/the Caucasus/the Pontic Steppe or low-intensity conflict along the frontiers, and as for cheap loot from infidels, there's the minor Caucasian/Russian states right there for taking at much lower risk/expenditure. However, the sentiments remains, and this just develops many, many experienced warriors with a hatred of the Empire. Eventually, one of the warlords will defeat the others through exhaustion, leaving a need for quick money, a surplus of experienced warriors with modern fighting experienced, and a long-standing grudge against the Romans...

 

[stevep]

The pre-Timur trend in Central Asia was towards increasing decentralization as the post-Mongol system collapses, and without his (implausible) rise to power I see no reason why this would change. The result is probably a thunderdome/crab-bucket like period where regional warlords fight each other, with anyone capable of uniting them being jumped on before he can get the power to do so. The population of the region will suffer greatly, driving migration into North India which helps prop up the Delhi Sultanate, and worsening infrastructure which only further makes the region worse.

Re: The Golden Horde threatening the Byzantines, I think that the Golden Horde's attention will be more focused on Poland-Hungary, as the two states would have ideological, economic and social reasons for conflict (Sword of Islam v. "Crusader" nobility", competition for land, grain and population, control of resources in Carpathians, constant slave raids creating a hatred across all levels of Polish-Hungarian society and a pro-raiding, pro-slavery culture dominating the GH) that will keep them at each other's throats pretty much constantly. The most issues I can see between Constantinople and Saray are raids across the Bulgarian frontier that are easier/cheaper to deal with through forts and themes rather than all-out war, naval conflict around Crimea and competing influence in the Caucasus.

The displacement of Turks from Anatolia will create population pressure in the region and embed no small amount of hatred towards the Byzantines, fueling the ghazi mentality, but I don't think this will coalesce into an alt-Timur. Many of the resources needed to do so will be sucked off into regional wars in Central Asia/the Caucasus/the Pontic Steppe or low-intensity conflict along the frontiers, and as for cheap loot from infidels, there's the minor Caucasian/Russian states right there for taking at much lower risk/expenditure. However, the sentiments remains, and this just develops many, many experienced warriors with a hatred of the Empire. Eventually, one of the warlords will defeat the others through exhaustion, leaving a need for quick money, a surplus of experienced warriors with modern fighting experienced, and a long-standing grudge against the Romans...

Well that last bit along with the ending of previous post bodes well for the empire, NOT. Hopefully they can survive and recover their core territories again but going to have a rough time. Plus with a weakness in military technology followed by a heavy defeat in the east that could prompt more intrusions from the Catholic states again. Another time of troubles and whether it survives again would depend on future events.