Could the Byzantine Empire have survived? What would the state look like if it still existed today in some form? Would the Greeks still call themselves Romans?
>Could the Byzantine Empire have survived?
No.
>What would the state look like if it still existed today in some form?
Greece
>Would the Greeks still call themselves Romans?
Maybe if nationalism doesn't kick off
>>377745
>No.
Any reason for this? I don't see the Turks winning Manzikert and settling in Anatolia as inevitable, and the Komnenos restoration was almost successful in destroying the Sultanate of Rum. Almost.
>>377876
I think even if it survived past the Turkic invasions it would have fallen in a similar way to the Ottomans. Becoming the sick man of Europe, throughout much if not most of it's history, the Byzantine Empire was the sick man of Europe.
>>377897
Byzantium kept shrinking and then rising up to reconquer land, and I'd say that although it never recovered its status as the absolute power in the mediterranean after the muslim conquests, it did manage to remain one of the biggest economic powers of Europe. It was a complex country, and its power waxed and waned through the really long time it existed. It was practically dead after the 4th crusade though, and the fact that the Palaiologos dynasty kept having civil wars just put the lid in the coffin.
>>377922
Yeah, it was powerful throughout a lot of it's history. But poor rulers, instability, and clinging to the past ended up being it's downfall.
It's a shame too, it was the last remnant of Classical Culture in Europe. A world in which it survived would be an interesting one.
>>377958
>clinging to the past
That would be a relevant argument if their past wasn't actually more advanced than most of Europe at that time, and all up to late 15th century. People fail to understand how advanced Byzantium was compared to rest of Europe. In 1200, Paris had 100,000 inhabitants, Constantinople had up to 250,000.
Problems of ERE were internal instability, being at the crossroads and thus facing many enemies. But it didn't suffer some structural collapse like Western Roman Empire did. They simply didn't have luck, as weird as that sounds.
>>377876
The Turks weren't any different to the Serbs or Bulgars when they first arrived, and for a while were less a threat than the other new arrivals - especially the Normans. The Ottomans just happened to be the strongest and most dynamic power in the 15th century, but it could have just as easily been another power in the Balkans that finally ended the Byzantines. It's the sack of the Fourth Crusade and the chaos of the Latin Empire that was the turning point from which, politically and demographically, the empire could never recover from.
>>378049
>The Turks weren't any different to the Serbs or Bulgars
That's not true. Serbs and Bulgarians (they weren't Bulgars by then) were Orthodox Christians, who adopted quite some of Byzantine culture.
There was shitload of wars but those wars had a bit different character.
When Serb king (or emperor, as he called himself) conquered areas of Greece, he proclaimed himself ''Emperor of Serbs and Greeks'', and Greek was actually official language alongside Serbian.
Slavic-Greek fusion which would happen in case Slavs in Balkans prevailed would look totally different (and probably better) from Ottoman Empire.
>>378030
>internal instability
its kind of amusing in a sad way to read about how invaders could be at the empire's borders ready to attack and the court was more busy scheming and backstabbing each other than with organizing a real defense.
>>377723
3. We still kind of do traditionaly.
>>378089
Yes. Now why was it like that, who knows. Guess elites were too detached, and too arrogant to consider their ancient and powerful empire could fall. Generation after generation took it's toll.
But point is, same happened in various other points of the globe, scheming wasn't unique to ERE.
But their position was unique. It was a source of their power, and source of their downfall in the end.
>>378088
By the time the Turks arrived yes, that's what the Serbs and Bulgarians were, but there was quite some time between this cultural diffusion and their first arrival. And yet at the same time this made the Slavic pretenders and rebels far more dangerous to the Empire.
>>378115
Dangerous in political sense. Thing is, if Bulgarians or Serbs managed to conquer ERE, they'd probably simply become influential factions, they wouldn't dispense with the empire.
Turks and previously Muslims were bigger danger, in existential sense.
>>378127
Just to explain if my wording was weird: ERE wouldn't suffer total collapse and complete transformation in case Slavs prevailed.
Maybe early on during Slavic invasions, but not later when those Slavs became more and more influenced by Byzantium.
>>378127
The difference was, in the 11th century, there wasn't a danger of a Turkish Muslim conquest like there was in the 15th century. I feel it's too easy to project the Ottoman situation backwards in time to the Seljuk era. Under Alexios, before 1090 or so, the Turks were rather more subdued and mercenary in their relationship with Byzantine Anatolia than the Serbs were in the Balkans, and there was no problem bringing a number of beys into Imperial control through marriage and appointment of honors.
No, Justinian cocked everything up.
The empire was broken from the start.
If the East wanted to survive they should launching retarded campaigns in Italy, literally its all Justinians fault
>>378789
should have stopped*
Maybe they could hold on to Constantinople and bits of Anatolia but I don't really see them being more than a bigger, richer Greece.
