Reality Check: A Limited Roman Restoration in 1356 AD

How plausible would it be to have a limited Roman restoration(Greece + Asia Minor Aegean coastline) in 1356? Mayhap with outside help? I'm assuming that the nobility doesn't declare a civil war every time the Emperor sneezes.

I think it fairly plausible. At this time the Ottomans, while a major Turkish power, were not the overwhelming power they would be just before the interregnum, with them holding major territory in Europe(Bulgaria and Greece).

Though Roman problems are not insignificant, which is why I'm on the fence. Though if a certain someone can write a story on a restoration in 1453, then certainly a 1356 restoration is not out of the question.

I would imagine the Romans, by 1600, would somewhere be comparable to where they were just before the 4th Crusade territory-wise, probably a bit less. Assuming the gains aren't just temporary.

And yes, I've been playing EUIV: MEIOU & Taxes, how'd you guess?

Realistic, yes...plausible, no...

The Byzantine Empire was wracked with conflict between the Palaiologian Emperor, Ioannes V and the Kantakouzenos Emperor, Ioannes VI (and co-Emperor, Matthias), the latter was backed by the Ottomans, the former the Serbians, and although the former won out, the Ottomans still managed to gain more and press further into Thrace.

Frankly, even though the Palaiologos Dynasty successfully defeated the Latin Empire and restore the Byzantines to Northern Greece, the successors of Michael VII are at best unable to handle the situation and at worse practically sped up the decline.

I'm playing that too. I think it might be realistic but real life emporers would not act with complete rationality and have complete control over there soldiers. They also made some amazingly stupid decisions which anyone with half a brain would never do.

Its really implausible IMO. Not to say it can't be done, but you've got your work cut out for you.

The Ottomans already have a foothold in Europe and is no longer in the same league as the other beyliks, Serbia is still pretty powerful, and the Venetian vulture is lurking around. Meanwhile, the the Byzantine empire is tiny, broke, has no resources, almost no manpower, is surrounded (semi) hostile powers who gain from it being weak, has bad leaders, corruption, and is economically dominated by Genoa and Venice.

The Byzantines need breathing room to recover and build up their power again. So they need to do everything to buy themselves time.

But, to tip the scales in your favor...

Kill off Murad I and have him be replaced by a less competent sultan. He's responsible for most of the conquests of the Balkans. And have his successor focus on subduing the other beyliks instead of attacking Europe.

Kill off John VI. That man was the Byzantine version of Antonio Santa Anna. Incompetent, inefficient, disliked yet somehow unable to die or be permanently removed from power.

Have the War of Chioggia (or alternate version) arrive on schedule or earlier. This will put Genoa and Venice out of commission for a good 30 years and drastically reduce the power of both states as they will be exhausted from fighting each other. If the war goes different, Genoa can win and permanently cripple Venice, giving the Byzantines more breathing room.

If the Byzantine's survive until Timur's wars (which I think are already in the process of beginning, not entirely sure. Someone correct me if I'm wrong) the Ottomans can be crippled, balkanized or destroyed during Timur's invasion of Anatolia.

However, I think if all goes well (Read: If they are as overpowered as Austria in EU:IV), than by 1600 the Byzantines can have Basil II's territories.

Soverihn said:

Kill off Murad I and have him be replaced by a less competent sultan. He's responsible for most of the conquests of the Balkans. And have his successor focus on subduing the other beyliks instead of attacking Europe.

Click to expand...

I agree on the Murad I, the less competent sultan bit however could be done one better if John V can install his brother-in-law Halil as Sultan.

Kill off John VI. That man was the Byzantine version of Antonio Santa Anna. Incompetent, inefficient, disliked yet somehow unable to die or be permanently removed from power.

Click to expand...

Also take to mention of killing his son Matthew too.

Have the War of Chioggia (or alternate version) arrive on schedule or earlier. This will put Genoa and Venice out of commission for a good 30 years and drastically reduce the power of both states as they will be exhausted from fighting each other. If the war goes different, Genoa can win and permanently cripple Venice, giving the Byzantines more breathing room.

Click to expand...

This could be beneficial (even more so if the Genoese victory was Pyrrhic as well, as this could not only give Byzantium more of an advantage, but also can regain its claims over Genoese-controlled Kaffa in the Southern Crimea.)

If the Byzantine's survive until Timur's wars (which I think are already in the process of beginning, not entirely sure. Someone correct me if I'm wrong) the Ottomans can be crippled, balkanized or destroyed during Timur's invasion of Anatolia.

Click to expand...

Firstly, Timur has not yet risen to prominence. (He didn't start to rule until 1370, and his first conquests were not until 1363, just under a decade from the preferred PoD.) So there may be a chance that Timur might not come knocking at all. Still, if Halil becomes Sultan, then Byzantium might have bought a chance without hoping for Timur.

However, I think if all goes well (Read: If they are as overpowered as Austria in EU:IV), than by 1600 the Byzantines can have Basil II's territories.

Click to expand...

Probably gonna need a lot of reforms before we could say it's Austrian-level OP.

Soverihn said:

Its really implausible IMO. Not to say it can't be done, but you've got your work cut out for you.

1] The Ottomans already have a foothold in Europe and is no longer in the same league as the other beyliks, Serbia is still pretty powerful, and the Venetian vulture is lurking around. Meanwhile, the the Byzantine empire is tiny, broke, has no resources, almost no manpower, is surrounded (semi) hostile powers who gain from it being weak, has bad leaders, corruption, and is economically dominated by Genoa and Venice.

The Byzantines need breathing room to recover and build up their power again. So they need to do everything to buy themselves time.

But, to tip the scales in your favor...

2] Kill off Murad I and have him be replaced by a less competent sultan. He's responsible for most of the conquests of the Balkans. And have his successor focus on subduing the other beyliks instead of attacking Europe.

3] Kill off John VI. That man was the Byzantine version of Antonio Santa Anna. Incompetent, inefficient, disliked yet somehow unable to die or be permanently removed from power.

4] Have the War of Chioggia (or alternate version) arrive on schedule or earlier. This will put Genoa and Venice out of commission for a good 30 years and drastically reduce the power of both states as they will be exhausted from fighting each other. If the war goes different, Genoa can win and permanently cripple Venice, giving the Byzantines more breathing room.

If the Byzantine's survive until Timur's wars (which I think are already in the process of beginning, not entirely sure. Someone correct me if I'm wrong) the Ottomans can be crippled, balkanized or destroyed during Timur's invasion of Anatolia.

However, I think if all goes well (Read: If they are as overpowered as Austria in EU:IV), 5] than by 1600 the Byzantines can have Basil II's territories.

Click to expand...

1] Yeah, but they still weren't as overwhelming as they were by 1400. With a great deal of good luck for the Romans and bad luck for the Ottomans, something could happen.

2] Maybe an earlier interregnum AND an incompetent Sultan. This could cripple the Ottomans, possibly permanently, which is good for the Romans!

3] That might be even worse for the Romans, depending on how and when you kill him off, as it might lead to another civil war, which is not what they need right now.

4] Never heard about this war. Mind a brief explanation?

5] In EUIV by 1600 I'll probably be in Egypt.

Info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Chioggia

Also, while that is true too, again, why not go for the trifecta, you would not only have a permanently weakened Ottomans, but also one that is effectively a puppet state.

Dirk_Pitt said:

1] Yeah, but they still weren't as overwhelming as they were by 1400. With a great deal of good luck for the Romans and bad luck for the Ottomans, something could happen.

2] Maybe an earlier interregnum AND an incompetent Sultan. This could cripple the Ottomans, possibly permanently, which is good for the Romans!

3] That might be even worse for the Romans, depending on how and when you kill him off, as it might lead to another civil war, which is not what they need right now.

4] Never heard about this war. Mind a brief explanation?

5] In EUIV by 1600 I'll probably be in Egypt.

Click to expand...

2) That might work to seriously weaken the Ottomans. It'd also probably weaken several other beyliks, such as the Aydinids if they get involved. I don't think the Romans would have the strength to get some territorial gains outside some coastal forts at this moment. However, even that is good as it denies coastal access, which is both an economic and security bonus.

3) Or not. John K was only popular among the aristocracy (which can be dealt with). The Clergy and the common people hated him. So, if he is quietly assassinated and John V is quickly crowned, the people would readily accept their new emperor.

4) Read this. Basically, it was the culmination of Venetian-Genoan rivalry. The states have been competing for decades, trying to gain a permanent advantage over each other, and finally a long, extensive war involving all of their assets. It really crippled both of them, (economically, militarily, power projection wise, everything) although Venice managed to recover, while Genoa did not. I'd liken it to Byzantine Sassanid war of the early 600s.

5) Ha. You're better than I am.

Also, Razgriz is right. The Byzantine state needs alot of reforms, primarily in things such as centralization (to curb the nobility) and economic reforms (curb inflation, help struggling merchants, capitalize on Constantinople's position, etc).

And the Byzantine state has nothing but dust and memories in the treasury. That, in and of itself, shoots down the chance of even retaking its borders as of 1280.

1025? Not even a ghost of a chance.

Even if you completely and utterly smash the Ottoman Turks, Byzantium is in almost no position to take advantage of the situation on even the most immediate (Thrace) level. Taking advantage of it to advance into Anatolia is absurd.

Also, and I'm asking because I haven't read as much in detail on him as I'd like - why the John VI hate? What did he do that was worse than Andronicus III or John V?

I'm not defending him, just seeking elaboration. And not just wikipedia articles - this isn't about wiki's reliability, just the limits of what it covers.

Elfwine said:

And the Byzantine state has nothing but dust and memories in the treasury. That, in and of itself, shoots down the chance of even retaking its borders as of 1280.

1025? Not even a ghost of a chance.

Even if you completely and utterly smash the Ottoman Turks, Byzantium is in almost no position to take advantage of the situation on even the most immediate (Thrace) level. Taking advantage of it to advance into Anatolia is absurd.

Also, and I'm asking because I haven't read as much in detail on him as I'd like - why the John VI hate? What did he do that was worse than Andronicus III or John V?

I'm not defending him, just seeking elaboration. And not just wikipedia articles - this isn't about wiki's reliability, just the limits of what it covers.

Click to expand...

Eh, things can get better if you let the state rest and fix itself.

Thankfully, this era is just full of powers shooting themselves in the foot or going into decline. (Examples being Bulgarian after Ivan Alexander, Serbian decline after the death of Stefan V, Smyriote Crusade, War of Chioggia, Won't be easy, Hungary's wars, and the beginning of the 100 years war)

It sure as hell won't be easy for the state to prosper, (ain't nobody saying that) but its not impossible.

As for John...

Instigate civil wars, constantly invite foreign powers to meddle in Byzantine affairs with promises of land and money (that he could never fulfill), make bad power grabs, and generally be an idiot and piss off everyone, among other things. He reminds me way too much of Mexico's Santa Anna.

Well to be fair, John V did the same thing. Remember, John VI was backed by the Ottomans, while John V was backed by Serbia.

And in another fairness, so did a lot of Emperors and potential usurpers in making bad power grabs and pissing everyone off...that has been standard Byzantine Politics since before there was Byzantium...

I never said I disliked John VI, I did say it was an option yes, but long story short if the Byzantines are to be the great power it is then the civil war will have to end, either by killing John VI and Matthew, or killing John V and potentially all his possible heirs (the future Andronikos IV, Manuel II and Theodore I of Morea.)

Soverihn said:

Eh, things can get better if you let the state rest and fix itself.

Thankfully, this era is just full of powers shooting themselves in the foot or going into decline. (Examples being Bulgarian after Ivan Alexander, Serbian decline after the death of Stefan V, Smyriote Crusade, War of Chioggia, Won't be easy, Hungary's wars, and the beginning of the 100 years war)

It sure as hell won't be easy for the state to prosper, (ain't nobody saying that) but its not impossible.

Click to expand...

Better as in "Byzantium limps into the 16th century"? Possibly. Better as in Byzantium is a power of any significance? It is as close as makes no difference. There are plenty of powers shooting themselves in the foot and that still doesn't give gold to an empty treasury and soldiers to the army's vacant ranks.

What is left under Byzantine control to rebuild with? http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/byzantine_1355.htm (close enough for our purposes)

Even with the War of Chioggia, Byzantium is in no position to wrestle control of customs from Venice and Genoa, for example. Thrace is badly depopulated thanks to the civil wars, so even if somehow someone able to bully the aristocrats into paying taxes came about the tax base sucks.

OTL 1356-1453 was extraordinarily successful at holding on despite fading resources. It was not the worst (fastest defeated) possible outcome.

As for John...

Instigate civil wars, constantly invite foreign powers to meddle in Byzantine affairs with promises of land and money (that he could never fulfill), make bad power grabs, and generally be an idiot and piss off everyone, among other things. He reminds me way too much of Mexico's Santa Anna.

Click to expand...

The first one reminds me of Andronicus III, both sides of the civil war sought help from abroad, I'm not sure what you mean by bad power grabs (as opposed to good power grabs), and pissing off "Everyone" would have lead to a very short reign.

I'm not saying he didn't screw up, but this is an era of screw ups.

Elfwine said:

Better as in "Byzantium limps into the 16th century"? Possibly. Better as in Byzantium is a power of any significance? It is as close as makes no difference. There are plenty of powers shooting themselves in the foot and that still doesn't give gold to an empty treasury and soldiers to the army's vacant ranks.

Click to expand...

You do realize that alot of things can happen in 300 years right? And that if you give a state peace, trade and stability the population can grow? And that a growing population generates wealth, no matter how small?

The idea here is not to beat everyone else, its to do as best as we can and stay under the radar until the state is back on its feet (or at least able to do *something*).

What is left under Byzantine control to rebuild with? http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/byzantine_1355.htm (close enough for our purposes)

Click to expand...

Constantinople? I mean 50K people is alot. No where near its former glory days, but its still bigger than Rome and London at the time. (IIRC, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Even with the War of Chioggia, Byzantium is in no position to wrestle control of customs from Venice and Genoa, for example. Thrace is badly depopulated thanks to the civil wars, so even if somehow someone able to bully the aristocrats into paying taxes came about the tax base sucks.

Click to expand...

There is nice 20 year gap in between 1356 and 1376 (the start of the war) to allow for some (tiny) growth and development.

Obviously that's not enough. So lets have a few other things help the state; mainly, by weakening the competition. Say, if Stefan V dies earlier and Serbia's generals decide to wreck havok and carve out their own fiefdoms, effectively balkanizing the state until someone conquers it. (Which, if we use OTL as a guide, this would take ~20-30 years) that knocks Serbia out of the game.

If Bulgaria keeps its alliance with the Romans, and somehow loses its stability leading to the state getting divided (Ivan Alexander messes up somewhere, I dunno) than that benefits the Romans too.

We could also have Hungary trying to take advantage and end up crushing/crippling or otherwise weakening Serbia, Wallachia and Bulgaria, which also increases the relative strength of the Romans. There's also refugees from all this war and instability that could want to settle in Thrace or Thessaloniki.

Combine that with the earlier suggestions of a weakened and a puppet Ottoman state and the historical alliance with the Aydinids, and that could give the Byzantines alot more breathing room to develop, at least until the 1380s or so.

The latter could be very beneficial, especially if the Aydinid fleet is under orders not to strike at Byzantine merchants/ships yet still targets any other fleet.

The first one reminds me of Andronicus III, both sides of the civil war sought help from abroad, I'm not sure what you mean by bad power grabs (as opposed to good power grabs), and pissing off "Everyone" would have lead to a very short reign.

I'm not saying he didn't screw up, but this is an era of screw ups.

Click to expand...

I keep alluding to Mexico's Santa Anna.

Soverihn said:

You do realize that alot of things can happen in 300 years right? And that if you give a state peace, trade and stability the population can grow? And that a growing population generates wealth, no matter how small?

Click to expand...

A lot of things have to happen for Byzantium to last another century like OTL. Another three hundred years would require even more to go right.

The idea here is not to beat everyone else, its to do as best as we can and stay under the radar until the state is back on its feet (or at least able to do *something*).

Click to expand...

Byzantium is in no position, geopolitically, to stay under the radar. It is surrounded by enemies, its capital is in a very valuable spot (and unable to take advantage of that because of the state's feeble naval power), and broke.

Constantinople? I mean 50K people is alot. No where near its former glory days, but its still bigger than Rome and London at the time. (IIRC, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Click to expand...

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mslee/london.html This says 35,000 - but England on the whole, post-plague, is two million - where as Byzantium, Serbia, Bulgaria, and the lingering fragments of what had been the Latin Empire put together are three million-odd in 1346 (The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History) - but Byzantium by no means controls most of that territory. That's far more relevant.

Rome is in the 15-22,000 range according to that book. Paris is 50,000+, so are Genoa and Venice.

There is nice 20 year gap in between 1356 and 1376 (the start of the war) to allow for some (tiny) growth and development.

Obviously that's not enough. So lets have a few other things help the state; mainly, by weakening the competition. Say, if Stefan V dies earlier and Serbia's generals decide to wreck havok and carve out their own fiefdoms, effectively balkanizing the state until someone conquers it. (Which, if we use OTL as a guide, this would take ~20-30 years) that knocks Serbia out of the game.

Click to expand...

Carving out their own fiefdoms, if less by force of arms and more by "lalala the tsar is a weakling" is OTL.

If Bulgaria keeps its alliance with the Romans, and somehow loses its stability leading to the state getting divided (Ivan Alexander messes up somewhere, I dunno) than that benefits the Romans too.

We could also have Hungary trying to take advantage and end up crushing/crippling or otherwise weakening Serbia, Wallachia and Bulgaria, which also increases the relative strength of the Romans. There's also refugees from all this war and instability that could want to settle in Thrace or Thessaloniki.

Click to expand...

Hungary expanding just replaces those states with Hungary as Byzantium's ambitious northern neighbor. And I don't think medieval peasants became refugees fleeing to other countries quite like people do in the 20th century.

Combine that with the earlier suggestions of a weakened and a puppet Ottoman state and the historical alliance with the Aydinids, and that could give the Byzantines alot more breathing room to develop, at least until the 1380s or so.

The latter could be very beneficial, especially if the Aydinid fleet is under orders not to strike at Byzantine merchants/ships yet still targets any other fleet.

Click to expand...

Byzantium is in an iron lung. Breathing room is not enough.

Even if its neighbors are in disarray, it simply has no strength left to take advantage of anything except in the most minor way. And that is not enough to carry it two hundred years longer than OTL or reclaim any appreciable amount of lost territory.

I keep alluding to Mexico's Santa Anna.

Click to expand...

Yes, you do. And given everyone's actions at the time John was around causing problems - for feth's sake John V Palaiologos's mother pawned the crown jewels to Venice (which says a lot about how bankrupt the state is) - I don't think its fair to single him out as the only one fucking things up.

Frankly if the Romans can maintain 1356 borders plus the Ottoman foot hold at Gallipoli(which I don't see as impossible if the Ottomans are in for really bad times; wasn't the main reason the Ottomans gained the area was because an earthquake forced the Romans to abandon the area?) by 1390 then they're a head of the game as is.

Dirk_Pitt said:

Frankly if the Romans can maintain 1356 borders plus the Ottoman foot hold at Gallipoli(which I don't see as impossible if the Ottomans are in for really bad times; wasn't the main reason the Ottomans gained the area was because an earthquake forced the Romans to abandon the area?) by 1390 then they're a head of the game as is.

Click to expand...

Ahead of what game?

Honestly this is where one has to wonder why OTL is not a good enough success story.

Elfwine said:

Ahead of what game?

Honestly this is where one has to wonder why OTL is not a good enough success story.

Click to expand...

The game of Survival, my good man!

And obviously OTL is not good enough. They failed in 1453.

Also the guy suggesting Basil II borders was obviously doing so in jest. But I believe that somewhere around the borders prior to the 4th crusade might be doable by 1600.

Dirk_Pitt said:

The game of Survival, my good man!

And obviously OTL is not good enough. They failed in 1453.

Also the guy suggesting Basil II borders was obviously doing so in jest. But I believe that somewhere around the borders prior to the 4th crusade might be doable by 1600.

Click to expand...

As someone who thinks Byzantium surviving until 1600 is somewhere between unlikely and as close to impossible as can be stated when theoretically you could have the Serbs spontaneously decide to pledge allegiance to the basileus (say), I don't.

At some point, nations pass the point of no return.

Well, Age of Miracles convinced me that it could survive a post-Fourth Crusade scenario...granted, I have little love for the Palaiologos dynasty in general, sans maybe Michael VIII and Constantine XI (albeit for more of a BotW reason than anything...)

Still, even with a 1356 scenario, it is stretching plausibility a bit, but even then, history has seen a lot of weird things that happened, and the fact that Byzantium even survived to 1453 was a stretch in plausibility, even by historical scenarios...I'm pretty sure you would have to agree with me on that Elfwine.

Razgriz 2K9 said:

Still, even with a 1356 scenario, it is stretching plausibility a bit, but even then, history has seen a lot of weird things that happened, and the fact that Byzantium even survived to 1453 was a stretch in plausibility, even by historical scenarios...I'm pretty sure you would have to agree with me on that Elfwine.

Click to expand...

That's the thing. Surviving until 1453 was with disintegrating neighbors (except the Ottomans, but they did get hit pretty hard by Timur), was with attempts at stabilizing the situation, was with Venice and Genoa spending a lot of energy tearing at each other. It's not as if everyone was dealt a good hand, and yet Byzantium still lacked the ability to take advantage of it.