My Newest video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a7B5fa-Au83Oqo0.html

The Norman’s interestingly formed Albania throughout the liberation of dyrachium when prince progani and the first Albanian state was formed in 1090 which later fell to dushans Serbian empire in the 1300s. The Normans made a huge impact in the region which isn’t factored in when thinking of the history of the balkans

The Normans were like the European version of the Mongols. They just conquered, and conquered, and conquered

This is a "What if" I have never seen before, cool idea and great execution! 👌

I do love the Normans. They were unique for European Christians and they shaped world history for so many.

Alexios was the definition of stubbornness

As a descendant of Normans who settled in the Balkans, this alternative reality speaks to me on a deeper level. It's quite mind boggling to think how much different my life would be if these events had taken place

Honestly, I think it's far more likely that the Normans would focus most of their efforts in securing the East. The East was still richer than the West, monetarily sure, but primarily in prestige. Constantinople held a great deal of gravitas and ancientness that the West simply couldn't compete with. Constantinople held institutions that dated back to the earliest days of the Imperial Church. And on the point of the Church, while you didn't mention it in the video, I believe that the Normans, holding court in Constantinople, would feel pressured by not just the gravitas of The City, but by the Eastern Church Hierarchy to convert to the Eastern Rite. I think they'd likely do so. The Normans had an on-again-off-again relationship with the Papacy, combined with that Constantinopolitan pressure, would've led to conversion. As to how the Normans would fare in their governance of the East? Well, I think they'd do surprisingly well. It would be similar to their rule over England and Sicily, which fell, not from internal revolt, but from dynastic problems. I foresee Norman rule being quite like Illyrian rule during and following the Crisis of the Third Century, reinvigorating the Eastern Empire. I could see the Normans reconquering, in chronological order: 1) Anatolia. This would be the main focus of the early 12th century for the Normans (though not their only conquests during this time). I believe they would succeed where the Komnenids failed because the Normans did quite well against the Turks historically, and indeed, the Eastern Emperors up until Alexios I actually did try to use the Normans to beat the Turks and re-secure Anatolia, however, the Normans proved less than reliable and just added fuel to the already raging inferno in the region. In this timeline, with the Normans in control, this wouldn't be the case and Anatolia up to the Taurus Mountains would be secured by the mid-12th century. Would they go beyond that? Maybe, but definitely not in the 12th Century. Anatolia needs to take the next 50 or so years recovering economically before it'll be ready to support new Conquest Armies, like seen in the 10th Century. 2) The Balkans. Any Constantinople-based state, whether it be Roman, Greek, Turkish, or Norman, is going to want a secure Balkans. Any substantial Balkan State not ruled from Constantinople is a threat to Constantinople. So the late 12th Century will be about reconquering the Balkans. This will likely be done by the beginning of the 13th century. Obviously there will be some efforts throughout the 12th century to secure land in Anatolia, but following the defeat of the Turks, the Balkans becomes a major priority. Any Italian adventures, which there would be, would be compromised by an insecure Balkans frontier. I can see the Balkans being more or less secured by the beginning of the 13th century. I could see the Normans resettling Anatolia with various Balkan peoples, like the Bulgarians, to help Anatolia recover faster. Of course this part assumes that the Normans aren't fast enough to secure the Balkans before the emergence of another organized state besides the Empire. Thus gifting the entire Balkans to the Normans. 3) North Africa. As in OTL, the Normans would have an interest in North Africa primarily to stamp down on North African Piracy. This conquest wouldn't be systematic, but largely piecemeal over the course of the 12th century, done by local lords in Sicily and Southern Italy, with the nominal support of Constantinople. Most of North Africa would be secured by the end of the 12th century. They would stay loyal to Constantinople because they would be heavily dependent on the Empire to maintain their presence there. With the Almohads, while it would be touch and go for a time, thanks to the resources of the Empire, control over North Africa, while tenuous at times, is maintained. 4) Italy. This one's a bit questionable. Would they be able to secure all of Italy? Possibly. The HRE's control over Northern Italy was always a bit shaky. Plus, with the resources of the East in the hands of the Normans would have the resources to pull it off... The problem is, with the whole Empire to rule, they can't afford to send all their resources to Italy... But, if the Normans can get a field army to Italy, they have a good shot of taking Italy. However, at the barest minimum the Normans secure Southern Italy. Now, the big question: What would a Norman ruled Empire look like? Politically? First, I think the Normans would simply adopt the preexisting governing apparatus. It was far better than anything the Normans had and would make ruling their new empire far easier. This would be similar to what the Ostrogoths did in Italy in the late 5th century. Even if the system had taken a pounding in the late 11th century, it was still by far the best system in Europe at the time. You don't do away with something like that lightly. There would obviously be reforms, quintessentially Norman reforms, but it would still be an identifiably Roman Government. Culturally? This one's fairly easy to answer. The Normans would leave a cultural impact, however, their culture would not over take the local culture. Everywhere the Normans conquered, they never supplanted the local culture, but adapted to it, while leaving their mark on it. Linguistically, the Normans would leave behind some loan words certainly. It's even possible that Greek might adopt the Latin Alphabet, helping to smooth over differences between the Eastern and Western Rites. Other than that the Norman cultural impact will be fairly minimal. You might see an Eastern Empire that's more politically connected to the West and generally on better terms, though. Religiously? As stated, the Normans would most likely convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. However, it will be an Eastern Orthodoxy that's much more in tune with Catholicism. Militarily? The Normans would put the Empire back on a more Conquest oriented path. Would this lead to the reconquest of Egypt and the Levant in the centuries following the 13th? Possibly.

What if the Eastern Roman Empire collapsed instead of the West? The turning point I think would be that Majorian succeeded in conquering Africa from the Vandals and Leo I would fail at deposing the barbarian sects of his empire. Majorian would be given a longer rule and after Leo's death and Zeno's incompetance would lead to a collapse at the hands of invading Ostrogoths, Gepids, Sassanids, and maybe Vandal remnants in Egypt. I wanted to write an alt history of this and thought it out alot so I hope it hypes you up as much as it did me!

So, in this timeline, Normans would be not just Viking Knights, but Roman Viking Knights.

A very unique scenario! Love it! I like the Normans having an new Byzantine Empire and being in exile in Rome after losing Constantinople, as opposed to the Byzantines having a Roman Empire that is in exile in Constantinople after losing Rome. It's like poetry, it rhymes ...

Great video.. I have one idea What if Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa managed from drown at Saleph River 1190 A.D

I am Italian but I am originally from Lucania one of the first possessions of the Normans in the south of the peninsula and I really liked this video of alternate history!

I love this timeline, the French still unify Italy but 700 years earlier, plus with a Norman twist.

very interesting scenario, I never imagined the normans would've become so powerful

Heres a fun sequel to this: What if the Byzantines had gotten their hands on Antioch instead of Bohemond during the first crusade?

You’ve basically just summarized my most recent CK 3 campaign!

Hi, love your videos! I have an idea for a next video: what if the romans managed to make the whole balkan peninsula "latin", just like they did with romania?

Very interesting scenario. Great job 👍

Robert Guiscarde is my favorite man of all history. Fucking love him and his descendants!

Really interesting video

Great video.

Awesome video. But when do you do the remake of the History of Romania?

Nice video

That was brilliant. And very plausible. I'm not quite sure about the loss of territories in Greece. Roger II was used to rebellions and knew how to quell them quite proficiently. Subscribed!

Great video Bulgarian Empire Mapping, thanks for your hard work! I think Roger II would eventually rule south of Italy and Sicily like in this timeline, but would maintain his conquests in North Africa since he would avoid battle with a family member on the east, a lot of Christian would migrate there to fight against the Slavs and the Muslims (like in Spain), he could even consider whoever was on the Greek lands some Emperor of the East or something. With a Latin balkans I believe the west would never let something like the Ottomans grow and reach as far as Vienna, they'd make sure to help the Normans in the east in case of some big threat.

The question of all this alternate history stories, were the manpower from?

Constantinople would probably hold out like it did in otl against the Ottomans

This was badass

Well, it certainly make history more interesting.

This sounds like a good scenario to do for CK3. Especially when the new expansion comes out.

This would make a good end goal for a CK3 campaign

damn it, man. u make me wanna correct you in an Extended Timeline EU4 campaign. Byzantium forever! :))

It would have been the good ending. 5:11 The Serbo-Bulgarians would definitely resist and I think at this point an at least above average leader would arise in Constantinople as typically happens after they face a major crisis. Such a leader would definitely ally with Serbo-Bulgaria and the Rum Seljuks. I still think Constantinople would still fall but they have been historically pretty good with adaption and were able to repel several Ottoman sieges so what are the chances of them going heavy into becoming a trade power for a few centuries?. Either way, who knows maybe they'll have already spent their post-crisis god ruler recovering from the initial Norman and Serbo-Bulgarian conquest and be facing an Angeloi dynasty type senerio by the time the Normans have a king ready for a 1st siege, tho I think that is less likely. 5:25 I don't think they'll go for Africa. For one they'll be busy in Anatolia and for 2 they justified that African attack as a Crusade which wouldn't be an institution in this timeline, for 3 his invasion ended negatively for the native African Christians which I am biased to avoid. Also, I think Cilician Armenia would still form.

Interesting

The Emperor would have crushed the Normans in Dyrrhachium big time, hadn't the treacherous Turkish mercenaries betrayed and left him, and if only the Varangians got a hold on themselves. Now, I just want to know what would have happened to the Normans after that. This is a much more realistic scenario. Don't you think? ;-)

Well Time to get ck3 up and try this alt route

I love these balkan history videos, yet there's one thing. Around the time period which you describe, the HRE would be much more powerful, and would kick norman ass

Stretching it a bit but the crusader kingdoms and subsequent Latin empire had a distinct flavour of Norman conquest about them.

What happens in England in this timeline? Would there be a new English like language established in Italy as a Norman-Italian hybrid language that is close to English in our timeline or something else?

So A sad end to Byzantium in this timeline but arguably a better one

What if the Western Roman Empire didn't fall? and would be a primary enemy of the ERE

I think what would have happened , is something simillar to what happened after the fourth cruisade.

With which apps do you make these kinda maps, admin?

A renewed Roman Empire in Italy would probably fight much more vigorously for Greece and Constantinople, and possibly lead to the partial mending of the Great Schism in a Council of Florence style, with possibly the Russians and Bulgarians refusing to join. Either way this leads to much heavier Western involvement in the Balkans than in OTL, especially if dynastic chicanery involving Aragon or Hungary still occurs.

🔥🔥 what about if the qing empire never fell?🤔

The Normans would most likely established their own dynasty sitting on the Imperial Throne at Constantinople. They would also intermarried into Byzantine nobility. Overtime the Normans in the Byzantine Empire would be assimilated into local culture: converting to Eastern Orthodox Christianity and speaking in Greek. The only aspect of their original culture maintained was their martial skills. The Normans themselves are descended from Vikings who settled in Normandy in return for defending France from other Viking attacks. These Vikings become assimilated into local culture by adopting Christianity and local Romance language. The only aspect of their original Viking culture maintained is their martial skill and the desire to go adventuring. The Normans took parts in oversea adventures in search for fortune and glory. Norman descendants in the Byzantine Empire would do the same. They would put the Byzantine on a new path of expansion. They may launch a series of campaigns to retake Anatolia from the Turks and reestablished Byzantine rule. They may also expanse westward and may even put Italy once again under Byzantine rule for the first since Emperor Justinian. They also may launch military campaign into North Africa in order to stamp out piracy that plague the Mediterranean coasts. They would carve out territories in North Africa and established bases of operation to deal with piracy.

Romano-Normans interesting

So in this timeline, if the Normans control Italy, the islands (Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica) and North Africa west of Egypt, they would have a population of around 22-23 million people. Given the Norman zeal of administration, to match their military prowess, it is hard to see how they would lose the East if they had conquered Greece, some of the Balkans, Constantinople and the western half of Anatolia. Their combined population would be around 33 million people, well ordered and taxed. With their military prowess so well funded and supported by an efficient central administration, it is really hard for me to believe they would simply let the East slip away. Especially in Greece, the small polities would stand little to no chance against the Norman Roman Empire. It isn't credible they could fracture Greece without the Normans facing some existential threat that takes all their attention.The Normans were the most organized people in the West by during that time. Combining that with the Byzantine bureaucracy and other tools of state, and the Norman genius for war, they are the superpower of the period with a military and economic density on par with Justinian's empire. I think once they controlled the Byzantine heartlands they would be nearly impossible to remove because unlike the Eastern Romans after the Muslim invasions, the Normans in the East would be fully supported by the resources of the western half of their empire. They would not be on a shoe-string budget like the Byzantines were. They would fight tooth and nail for the Byzantine areas because of the prestige and credibility it brings. If they had 20-35 years to fully integrate those areas they would be on some very sure footing in East and West. No other power in that region of the time could match them by any measure. Nothing less than a coalition of all their enemies, east and west, could match them.

A blursed Latin Empire rather than just a cursed one this time around

I wonder what well the language of italy be pike in this timeline

Efficiency happens. Norman’s r juz superior yo

When did the normans conquer ALL of Tunisia? please, (in our timeline)

Never knew Bodin had Bulgarian origins Wow

Can you please make a video on what if Napoléon won and took all of Europe and invaded England. Napoléon Bonaparte emperor of the French, King of England liberater of Scotland and Ireland

Normans ruling a Roman Empire.

Imperium Normanum

In my alternate history the Norman De Hautville family actually rules Serbia Albania and Nikea!

ты красава

3:43 Serbia-Bulgaria is USA confirmed.

De Hauteville was pretty alpha.

Why is Bodin represented as a king of Serbia? He ruled over Dioclea (Duklja), and even if he was ethnically or culturally Serbian, he never aspired nor ruled over a country called "Serbia". He was, however, declared Rex Slavorum - King of the Slavs, by the Pope. Thus, him creating a "Serbian-Bulgarian" kingdom or empire is stupid, as he would most likely either consolidate under Duklja (the first Slavic kingdom in the Balkans) or Bulgaria, who held a higher rank of empire.

If that happened no turks in balcan only medieval castel pure feudal system strong feudal army kmights ecc no balcan wars any more

Nightmare scenario

Сърбите никога не са ни завладявали!

based?

Ttt