WI Byzantium did not sign treaties with merchant republics

[Constantinos]

In otl the byzantines in 12th century signed many deals with states like Venice and Genoa. However this forced Byzantium to rely on western help. In fact it was a curse in disgust because although trade increased Byzantine merchants were outcompeted by Western European merchants and began to rely heavily on foreigners. Essentially it's economy depended on foreign trade.

So Wi the Byzantines sign no such treaties. Wi they refuse westeners advances for trade agreements and stuck with original investures. what happens is Byzantine economy remains strog. In otl this was the main reason for Byzantines fall it's economy got complelty controlled by foreigners. Thus wi this does not happen. Could we see a surviving Byzantine empire.

[Elfwine]

Someone who knows the economics better than I do can probably answer better, but I think the problem is not so much the economy in terms of local merchants as the revenues available to the state.

I don't think not signing those agreements will lead to the survival of the empire unless other beneficial things happen. By the point they've truly gotten out of hand, the empire has more problems than it can even imagine solutions for.

[Basileus Giorgios]

Originally Posted by Constantinos

So Wi the Byzantines sign no such treaties. Wi they refuse westeners advances for trade agreements and stuck with original investures. what happens is Byzantine economy remains strog. In otl this was the main reason for Byzantines fall it's economy got complelty controlled by foreigners. Thus wi this does not happen. Could we see a surviving Byzantine empire.

Actually, what happens is the Komnenid dynasty is overthrown by the Normans, who possibly adopt Orthodoxy, and certainly start calling themselves Roman Emperors. The Komnenoi didn't sign deals with the merchant republics for shits and giggles, they did it because their backs were against the wall, and urgently needed naval allies to hold back the Norman threat for them to concentrate on campaigning in Anatolia to restore some measure of Roman sovereignty over the East.

[Horgus]

I think the claimed detrimental effect of the Italian treaties is quite exaggerated. The treaties kept Constantinople relevant as the preeminent center of trade in the eastern med.

The real damage was done by hindering the internal development of Byzantium's economy, as the Italians could undercut the markets of the empire and lock out native competition. This further held back Byzantine cultural development, which was already extremely conservative in regards to its view of merchants and trade in general.

[Constantinos]

Originally Posted by Horgus

I think the claimed detrimental effect of the Italian treaties is quite exaggerated. The treaties kept Constantinople relevant as the preeminent center of trade in the eastern med.

The real damage was done by hindering the internal development of Byzantium's economy, as the Italians could undercut the markets of the empire and lock out native competition. This further held back Byzantine cultural development, which was already extremely conservative in regards to its view of merchants and trade in general.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Fsb...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwz1p...eature=related
these are what i am talking about