It is a sad thing that the Byzantine Empire didn't survive and make it through the renaissance, enlightenment, industrialization and so on.
I don't think people realize just how exceptional it is that an empire and civilization that lasted longer than Rome itself was completely eradicated (as an independent state). Imagine if Russia or France disappeared.
Assuming it would survive, how do you think it would be? I think it would be something in between the Russian and Ottoman empires. Somewhat backwards, mysterious and not quite "European". Unlike the Ottomans, it would have a more solid national foundation and perhaps survive 19th century nationalism. Would they have been able to spread Christianity and Hellenism to the Levant again? I also wonder how their relationship with Russia would be, if they would've been eternal allies or fight against each other as with the Ottomans.
Bureaucratic and authoritarian, I suspect corrupt and clannish. Maybe with parallels with how Bulgaria and Romania are now, but with a more overtly theocratic aspect to it too. Certainly as distinct from Western and indeed Catholic Europe as from the Muslim world
A 1800's Byzantine Empire would have been /fa/ as fuck.
Bulgaria and Romania were under Ottoman rule, so you can't really draw conclusions from that.
OP's question is really hard.
Even if Ottomans didn't destroy it, Balkan Slavs probably would.
But Balkan Slavs would also probably carry on with Roman legacy. Empire would just become some Greco-Slavic mix or something.
They did try to reform, even as late as 1347. The problem is the large ultra conservative landowners who took over after 1204 refused to give merchants the time of day. Eventually when the Merchants and the poor revolted against them, the rich called in the Serbs and at the end of the Civil War, Byzantium was left a rump state.
If Romania survived, it would be a G20 Regional/Great power, assuming it keeps Basil's Borders.
Theres enough coal in Bulgaria and Eastern Anatolia for industrialization, and the rest of the Balkans and Western Anatolia are fertile enough to feed and equip a large population. Combine with a tradition of education and efficient bureaucracy, and we would see a very powerful economy.
Now, if it has Basil's borders plus the Levant and/or Egypt, then that's a superpower in the making.
Do note however that unlike the Ottomans their position was always going to be better as they'd be allied with Russia and Georgia at all times.
I should note, there's very little reason for the Byzantines to be 'backwards'. They had frequent contacts with the West via the Italians and French and had a tradition of constant reform when faced with new challenges (See Comneni Restoration, reforms of Basil and so forth) along with an economy geared more to manufacturing of luxury goods and weapons, which means any advances in record keeping and economics would be eagerly welcomed.
>Assuming it would survive, how do you think it would be?
Byzantium would have probably met the same demise as the Ottomans. While neighboring countries would become more developed and richer, the Byzantines would probably suffer a decline. However, Russia might attempt to keep Byzantium on the lifeline for old time's sake.
Anatolia isn't lost, but the sheer amount of low level raids from the Seljuqs probably means there's a slowdown in expansion and the economy is still as state controlled as it was during the Macedonian. This is actually a good thing, as the Comneni allowed the aristocracy to take over much more of the land, undermining the state's efficiency as they bribed government officials.
I doubt that they would have fought Russia, considering that just about when they were declining, they had serious political ties to a youngish Russian state. With the equation of family with State that existed at the time, they could have developed not only as an alliance but as one country.
What a country it could have been, too, with naval control over most routes into Asia.
Daily reminder that Ottomans were literally the muslim Byzantine Empire. And also reminder that Byzantine Empire had bigotic mentality due to being a really old country and Ottomans were progressive when compared with them. Funny thing is Ottomans were so much like Byzantine Empire that they made exactly the same mistakes and it also caused their end.
Anyone that made a research about Byzantine history, would know that it had a similiar serf system to Imperialistic Russia. And technological-wise it was inferior to both Europe and Middle East. It was pretty much waiting for someone to end them since early 1000's.
It had to die, and it died.
No. It was part of it, of course, since a bunch of texts came in boats to Western Europe, but only a part since people in Western Europe had to be educated enough as to read those texts. From the 13th century onwards, I would say that the Renaissance was a given. Northern Italy and the Netherlands were already urbanising at a rapid rate by that time, and specialist crop regions were flourishing across Europe -- Auxerre, for instance, grew only wine and bought its food elsewhere -- and since specialist crops are essential for economic modernisation, it is clear that the basis for the Renaissance was already well in the ascendant.
Also check out art from Siena for the late medieval period. As for the theological advances, the Dominicans and Franciscans had already proved that society was heading towards a more individualistic era. They did, after all, ride on the back of private confession, which created and accompanied a highly reflexive society.
>Daily reminder that Ottomans were literally the muslim Byzantine Empire.
Despite having completely different economies, administrative structures, levels of government control, attitudes and military strategies
>And also reminder that Byzantine Empire had bigotic mentality due to being a really old country and Ottomans were progressive when compared with them.
Which was why Western Europe considered the Byzantines to be decadent thanks to their tolerance towards Jews and Muslim Vassal States such as Eddessa? Or why we have women writers, landholders and doctors from the Byzantines and not from the Ottomans?
>Funny thing is Ottomans were so much like Byzantine Empire that they made exactly the same mistakes and it also caused their end.
I wasn't aware the Ottomans had the same amount of civil war, bad luck and plague rather than a terrible diplomatic situation, a low literacy rate, a shitty economy and extensive pandering to local warlords
>Anyone that made a research about Byzantine history, would know that it had a similiar serf system to Imperialistic Russia
Please tell me how Pronoia was like serfdom, or how the Maceodonian's legal protections of low level farmers resembled that of Imperial Russia
>And technological-wise it was inferior to both Europe and Middle East.
Which is why when the Westerners came during the First Crusade they were completely unimpresed by the Throne Room's mechanical apparatuses, the knowledge of Greek Fire, the Size of Constantinople, how clean the hospitals were, how their feats of engineering led to larger and sturdier buildings despite being in an earthquake prone environment and how effective their medicine was?
>It was pretty much waiting for someone to end them since early 1000's.
The Comnenoi and the Palaiologoi say otherwise.
Quit talking out of your ass.
Romanos Diogenes was advised to abandon Armenia and rebuild the border forts instead of rushing to defeat the Seljuks. Had he listened, Byzantium would still exist, and Anatolia would still be Greek.
Mate, I did a dissertation on pronoia and the themes, and they weren't serfdom. People were free to move from theme to theme as they wish. If they broke their obligation by not serving as soldiers or whatever, they didn't get their land, that was it. If you did serve, you received a plot of land big enough to support yourself, which would be passed along to your children so long as they could pay tax. It generated both manpower, food and wealth, while keeping the population moderately wealthy and supported.