The eagle's left head

pls don't ban me

Monthly Donor
@Lascaris
just to have a better idea of the balkans...

  • Proper Greece is in the hands of the Despotate of Sicily
  • Serbia controls all of Serbia, Macedonia ( except the coast) and Albania/montenegro
  • Bulgaria is basically on modern otl borders + entire dobruja
  • ERE is limited to eastern Thrace
  • ottomans in Gallipoli/Ghelibolu
correct?
 
Now that there is 1355, there are important developments at the Black Sea. According to the Treaty of Milan, both the Genoese and the Venetians are barred for 3 years from Tana. However, the Genoese have the well fortified Kaffa so they are not seriously affected. The Genoese will use this reprieve and the internal instability of the Golden Horde to gradually establish a proper colonial empire around the Genoese Gazaria and achieve supremacy in the Black Sea. Since they lack Chios and Lesvos, the importance of the Black Sea trade is becoming even greater once again and at the same time the reliance on a friendly or at least neutral Syracuse, that controls both shores of the Messina Straight and the Ionians and Aegean Seas.

When the Genoese defeated Ioannis VI, one of the terms of the treaty they imposed was barring access of Greeks merchants to Tana. But who were those merchants? Considering the devastation of Thrace and the relative prosperity of Morea, my guess is that most of these merchants were Monemvasiots, who were already established in the region in a series of cities. Pegae included. At the same time, we know that merchants of Messina were active in Caffa during the 1280s and 1290s. My guess would be that gradually their operations would have shift to Tana, the open emporium. In OTL the Genoese were content to allow access to Tana to the Florentines who were important trade partners, so I would expect they will allow the Sicilians and Monemvasiots to trade there as well. Ι expect the Despotate to be the third more important player in the Black Sea after the Genoese and the Venetians. Basically to have the role of the OTL Tuscans.

Then there is the matter of Pegae. The well-fortified town seems to have sheltered two groups: refugees from the rest of byzantine Asia Minor and a Monemvasiot mercantile community. Since I doubt that the town had an extensive hinterland, I would argue its character was more mercantile in nature. In OTL Monemvasiots of Pegae had received a lot of privileges by Andronikos II and III. The most important was the privilege of exkousseia, excemption of all taxes. Some historians like Ostrogorsky claim that exkousseia also provided judicial privileges, while Kalligas considers it entailed civic autonomy. Pegae remained free from the Karasids and then the Ottomans until 1363. It seems to me, that Pegae must have been an autonomous city that paid tribute first to the Karasids and then the Ottomans, basically a coastal Philadelphia.

What is important is that basically all the population of Pegae would be more loyal to the Lascarids rather than Kantakouzenos or Palaiologos. And Thessaloniki provides a potent example. Moreover, it is a fair guess that the Despotate merchants, or at least the Monemvasiots would regularly use Pegae. Crossing the Dardanelles from the south is a very taxing process, especially for oared vessels, due to the very strong currents flowing south from the Black Sea. Pegae's location right after the straight is ideal for the sailors to rest and replenish their water supplies.

Lastly, there is the case of Heraclea Pontica. The city seems to have been left to its own devices til it was sold to the Genoese. While I don't know under which conditions it was sold, the nature of the genoese expansion in the Black Sea could give some indications. Usually the Genoese would capture a port and then they would buy it from its rulers.

Overall, it seems that there is a good chance that the Despotate has a sizeable footprint in the Straights and the Black Sea.
 
Last edited:

pls don't ban me

Monthly Donor
Now that there is 1355, there are important developments at the Black Sea. According to the Treaty of Milan, both the Genoese and the Venetians are barred for 3 years from Tana. However, the Genoese have the well fortified Kaffa so they are not seriously affected. The Genoese will use this reprieve and the internal instability of the Golden Horde to gradually establish a proper colonial empire around the Genoese Gazaria and achieve supremacy in the Black Sea. Since they lack Chios and Lesvos, the importance of the Black Sea trade is becoming even greater once again and at the same time the reliance on a friendly or at least neutral Syracuse, that controls both shores of the Messina Straight and the Ionians and Aegean Seas.

When the Genoese defeated Ioannis VI, one of the terms of the treaty they imposed was barring access of Greeks merchants to Tana. But who were those merchants? Considering the devastation of Thrace and the relative prosperity of Morea, my guess is that most of these merchants were Monemvasiots, who were already established in the region in a series of cities. Pegae included. At the same time, we know that merchants of Messina were active in Caffa during the 1280s and 1290s. My guess would be that gradually their operations would have shift to Tana, the open emporium. In OTL the Genoese were content to allow access to Tana to the Florentines who were important trade partners, so I would expect they will allow the Sicilians and Monemvasiots to trade there as well. Ι expect the Despotate to be the third more important player in the Black Sea after the Genoese and the Venetians. Basically to have the role of the OTL Tuscans.

Then there is the matter of Pegae. The well-fortified town seems to have sheltered two groups: refugees from the rest of byzantine Asia Minor and a Monemvasiot mercantile community. Since I doubt that the town had an extensive hinterland, I would argue its character was more mercantile in nature. In OTL Monemvasiots of Pegae had received a lot of privileges by Andronikos II and III. The most important was the privilege of exkousseia, excemption of all taxes. Some historians like Ostrogorsky claim that exkousseia also provided judicial privileges, while Kalligas considers it entailed civic autonomy. Pegae remained freem from the Karasids and then the Ottomans until 1363. It seems to me, that Pegae must have been an autonomous city that paid tribute first to the Karasids and then the Ottomans, basically a coastal Philadelphia.

What is important is that basically all the population of Pegae would be more loyal to the Lascarids rather than Kantakouzenos or Palaiologos. And Thessaloniki provides a potent example. Moreover, it is a fair guess that the Despotate merchants, or at least the Monemvasiots would regularly use Pegae. Crossing the Dardanelles from the south is a very taxing process, especially for oared vessels, due to the very strong currents flowing south from the Black Sea. Pegae's location right after the straight is ideal for the sailors to rest and replenish their water supplies.

Lastly, there is the case of Heraclea Pontica. The city seems to have been left to its own devices til it was sold to the Genoese. While I don't know under which conditions it was sold, the nature of the genoese expansion in the Black Sea could give some indications. Usually the Genoese would capture a port and then they would buy it from its rulers.

Overall, it seems that there is a good chance that the Despotate has a sizeable footprint in the Straights and the Black Sea.
a genoese consolidation in the crimean peninsula would make it easier to defend and hold in the future
i mean, you built some forts in the north or, if the money flows like otl 16th century even a smaller Hadrian wall like and the peninsula is basically and entire fortress

1711032864066.png
 
Last edited:
Now that there is 1355, there are important developments at the Black Sea. According to the Treaty of Milan, both the Genoese and the Venetians are barred for 3 years from Tana. However, the Genoese have the well fortified Kaffa so they are not seriously affected. The Genoese will use this reprieve and the internal instability of the Golden Horde to gradually establish a proper colonial empire around the Genoese Gazaria and achieve supremacy in the Black Sea. Since they lack Chios and Lesvos, the importance of the Black Sea trade is becoming even greater once again and at the same time the reliance on a friendly or at least neutral Syracuse, that controls both shores of the Messina Straight and the Ionians and Aegean Seas.

When the Genoese defeated Ioannis VI, one of the terms of the treaty they imposed was barring access of Greeks merchants to Tana. But who were those merchants? Considering the devastation of Thrace and the relative prosperity of Morea, my guess is that most of these merchants were Monemvasiots, who were already established in the region in a series of cities. Pegae included. At the same time, we know that merchants of Messina were active in Caffa during the 1280s and 1290s. My guess would be that gradually their operations would have shift to Tana, the open emporium. In OTL the Genoese were content to allow access to Tana to the Florentines who were important trade partners, so I would expect they will allow the Sicilians and Monemvasiots to trade there as well. Ι expect the Despotate to be the third more important player in the Black Sea after the Genoese and the Venetians. Basically to have the role of the OTL Tuscans.
Why should the Laskarids take a part in the Black Sea project? It is overextending their powers as the ERE and the Osmans are controlling access to the Black Sea and are both hostile to the Despotate.
 
Why should the Laskarids take a part in the Black Sea project? It is overextending their powers as the ERE and the Osmans are controlling access to the Black Sea and are both hostile to the Despotate.

Well as much as the Florentines were involved. As the Messinesi and Monemvasiots were involved in OTL. The Black Sea trade was lucrative and even a very small share, pays any investement. In general, geography and the synergies between the different parts of the realm, are shaping a polity with characteristics of a maritime state. The need to constantly send resources from one half of the realm to the other, shapes policies that would promote naval power. Naval power in the era could come either from top down (e.g. the Ottomans building a great fleet in the 15th century without having any significant merchant fleet) or organically from the expansion of the merchant fleet. Since the state incorporated important trade centers (Messina, Monemvasia) from very early on and due its nature provided political power to the communes, then it makes sense the organic approach to be followed. That means expansion of trade and the most lucrative trade centers are firstly Alexandria and secondly the Black Sea.

When it comes to the Straits, it is a matter of legitimacy of the lascarid state. It is very similar to the case of Thessaloniki. If Theodore abandoned Thessaloniki to Dusan in exchange for Thessaly and peace, then his rule would have been undermined.
 
Again: why should the ERE allow the Despotate getting legitimacy through this?
And the Despotate has better points of trade by going to Alexandria or levantine cities that form part of the trade routes
 
Again: why should the ERE allow the Despotate getting legitimacy through this?

The ERE is not in a position to oppose the Despotate if an imperial city or more than one, choose to ask Syracuse for protection. The same has happened already with Thessaloniki and before that with Chios, Samos, Kos and Thasos. At this point, Constantinople doesn't have a proper army and has limited control over what is left of the Empire. The most well off place is Lesvos and it is under Manuel Kantakouzenos, hardly a Palaiologos loyalist.

And it is not just the threat of the Ottomans. For example, at that time, most of Lemnos was owned by athonite monasteries. Hesychast athonite monasteries. Anti-hesychasm is stronger than in OTL and has more legitimacy and political support. At some point, the peasants of the island might prefer to seize the land for themselves, if the monks are "heretics" and submit to the ruler who follows the "true religion".
 
Last edited:
The ERE is not in a position to oppose the Despotate if an imperial city or more than one, choose to ask Syracuse for protection. The same has happened already with Thessaloniki and before that with Chios, Samos, Kos and Thasos. At this point, Constantinople doesn't have a proper army and has limited control over what is left of the Empire. The most well off place is Lesvos and it is under Manuel Kantakouzenos, hardly a Palaiologos loyalist.

And it is not just the threat of the Ottomans. For example, at that time, most of Lemnos was owned by athonite monasteries. Hesychast athonite monasteries. Anti-hesychasm is stronger than in OTL and has more legitimacy and political support. At some point, the peasants of the island might prefer to seize the land for themselves, if the monks are "heretics" and submit to the ruler who follows the "true religion".
ERE: So you took over Lesvos from that traitor Kantakouzenos?Thank God!I am naming you governor of Lesvos as reward!
 
Last edited:
ERE: So you took over Lemnos from that traitor Kantakouzenos?Thank God!I am naming you governor of Lemnos as reward!
tbf a lot of the conversation is on how stupid John V is, which considering the different powers at play here I think could be possible.

I think that a lot of Alexandros II's reign would be him legitimising the despotate, since I think he'd want the legitimacy and prestige that would come from it. I'd expect him to fight the Ottomans as the Serbs disintegrate after Dusan. There's a huge possibility that Alexandros II would be the first conquerer of the Despotate, as I think he will launch at least one or two wars to expand the power of the Despotate.

Ultimately though I hope the Despotate launches a few crusades in North Africa. Putting Morocco under Despotate rule would ensure that the Despotate can travel through the Straits of Gibraltar a lot more easily and allow them to explore the world beyond the Med.

And it'd be something a 'X the Great/Conquerer' would do.
 
tbf a lot of the conversation is on how stupid John V is, which considering the different powers at play here I think could be possible.
Who was?I think most people agree that the ERE was in such a shit state that even if Gaius Julius Caesar himself replaced Ioannis, nothing might have changed.
I think that a lot of Alexandros II's reign would be him legitimising the despotate, since I think he'd want the legitimacy and prestige that would come from it. I'd expect him to fight the Ottomans as the Serbs disintegrate after Dusan. There's a huge possibility that Alexandros II would be the first conquerer of the Despotate, as I think he will launch at least one or two wars to expand the power of the Despotate.
Perhaps, but wars are expensive. I have no fucking idea how the Despotate is able to finance and supply enough troops for all these constant wars.
Ultimately though I hope the Despotate launches a few crusades in North Africa. Putting Morocco under Despotate rule would ensure that the Despotate can travel through the Straits of Gibraltar a lot more easily and allow them to explore the world beyond the Med.

And it'd be something a 'X the Great/Conquerer' would do.
That would be a continent too far.Literally.
 
Who was?I think most people agree that the ERE was in such a shit state that even if Gaius Julius Caesar himself replaced Ioannis, nothing might have changed.
Sorry I was trying to talk about Alexandros II, not John V.

But yeah at that point the Empire is at free fall.
Perhaps, but wars are expensive. I have no fucking idea how the Despotate is able to finance and supply enough troops for all these constant wars.
tbf it just depends on how they do it, and the Despotate would have some breathing room if Alexandros II don't immediately attack after Dusan gets poisoned.
That would be a continent too far.Literally.
It is the only way for the empire to be a colonial power, and using the excuse of 1. a holy war or 2. dealing with piracy once and for all would make sense.

And I was thinking that they would do that in the late 1500s/1600s. Alexandros II would not have the capability. For now.
 
Sorry I was trying to talk about Alexandros II, not John V.

But yeah at that point the Empire is at free fall.

tbf it just depends on how they do it, and the Despotate would have some breathing room if Alexandros II don't immediately attack after Dusan gets poisoned.

It is the only way for the empire to be a colonial power, and using the excuse of 1. a holy war or 2. dealing with piracy once and for all would make sense.

And I was thinking that they would do that in the late 1500s/1600s. Alexandros II would not have the capability. For now.
If they had the resources, reconquering Anatolia would be a better investment since there’s a large Greek population there.
 
If they had the resources, reconquering Anatolia would be a better investment since there’s a large Greek population there.
Actually I need some advice, how greek is Anatolia at this point? From what I read/heard/learned, the western and northern part of Anatolia are all greek, while the rest are Turks or Turkified. And do you think if the Lascarids conquer all of Anatolia, will they be able to hellenize Anatolia?
 
Actually I need some advice, how greek is Anatolia at this point? From what I read/heard/learned, the western and northern part of Anatolia are all greek, while the rest are Turks or Turkified. And do you think if the Lascarids conquer all of Anatolia, will they be able to hellenize Anatolia?
There is not a lot of information about that sadly.
Most Greeks in western asia minor were either enslaved, fled or converted to Islam, with the despotate absorbing even more refugees I presume that there might be less converts but one would also see a smaller remenent population.
In the 17 and 18 Century, during the times of the more tolerant Ottoman Empire, many Greeks from the mainland and the Aegean islands started to settle again in Ionia, Caria and Mysia, wich resulted in the rehellenization of western asia minor.
We dont realy have concrete evidence, but its likely that there were remenent population of Greeks in Smyrna and Nicea.
Indigenous were the Pontic and Cappadocian Greeks and if I remember correctly also the Paphlagonians.
Im realy intrested to see how the despotate will interact with the ones mentioned above, but also other Christian remenant poplations, l for example Cillician armenians, Crimean Greeks snd levantine Christians, wich got a huge influx of Greek migrants aswell.
 
In the 17 and 18 Century, during the times of the more tolerant Ottoman Empire, many Greeks from the mainland and the Aegean islands started to settle again in Ionia, Caria and Mysia, wich resulted in the rehellenization of western asia minor.
Wait what? Never heard of such a reverse immigration, always thought that the greeks in western anatolia that are still mentioned in the 20 century have always been there. Do you have more websites/books on this subject?
 
Most Greeks in western asia minor were either enslaved, fled or converted to Islam, with the despotate absorbing even more refugees I presume that there might be less converts but one would also see a smaller remenent population.

I wouldn't be very certain of that. Only a small part of the total population can realistically flee. Instead, I would think that a number of the OTL refugees in Thrace, found refuge in the Despotate. One difference is the policy of settling Greek rowers and sailors who were captured in turkish galleys, in Sicily and perhaps Calabria. These might be in the low thousands. However, in OTL when the latin fleets destroyed turkish fleets, these men were either killed or sold to slavery. So the demographic impact would be the same as in OTL.

I wouldn't be very sure of the degree of islamization. since we don't have much evidence regarding the 14th century. We know that Ibn Battuta described some regions in Bithynia as christian and we know that Umur's army included greek-speaking muslims that must have been recently islamized. My guess is that widespread islamization started three generations after the collapse of byzantine Asia Minor.
 
The ERE is not in a position to oppose the Despotate if an imperial city or more than one, choose to ask Syracuse for protection. The same has happened already with Thessaloniki and before that with Chios, Samos, Kos and Thasos. At this point, Constantinople doesn't have a proper army and has limited control over what is left of the Empire. The most well off place is Lesvos and it is under Manuel Kantakouzenos, hardly a Palaiologos loyalist.
Twice I asked and the answers were: 1) 'it´s profitable' and 2) something about asking for protection

For 1) the Laskarid Despotate can more easily get into contact with 'the silkroad' by going through levantine cities like Antiochia to circumvent the stranglehold of the ERE/Osmans have on the entrance to the Black Sea.

2) this doesn´t answer any question about why the ERE should allow the LD, and this doesn´t even account for the Osmans that also have obtained key territory there
 
Last edited:
Wait what? Never heard of such a reverse immigration, always thought that the greeks in western anatolia that are still mentioned in the 20 century have always been there. Do you have more websites/books on this subject?
Someone posted an exensive explenation on the subject, wich included a link to an explenation, but I cant find it now. :(
 
If they had the resources, reconquering Anatolia would be a better investment since there’s a large Greek population there.
Not really? They still have the problem of being trapped in the Med and Black seas, and the Central Asian trade routes would slowly die off as the South African trade route becomes the main route for trade between Europe and Asia, not to mention the American-to-Asia silver trade.

In terms of the long run I do think a North African conquest is more beneficial than Anatolia, but I defo see Anatolia being the first region the Lascarids would want to conquer.

But Morocco would be their ticket to the Atlantic, especially if they start with the Atlantic trade with Britain and with Aragon/Spain trying to shut the strait of Gibraltar from the Lascarids, and I don't see the Lascarids not reacting to that. Maybe they conquer Gibraltar instead, but it'd just mean they have to fight everyone else too, so Morocco makes more sense. It'd also help with piracy in the region too, which is something the Lascarids would care about. A lot.
I wouldn't be very sure of the degree of islamization. since we don't have much evidence regarding the 14th century. We know that Ibn Battuta described some regions in Bithynia as christian and we know that Umur's army included greek-speaking muslims that must have been recently islamized. My guess is that widespread islamization started three generations after the collapse of byzantine Asia Minor.
I think there's not enough time for them to become islamised yet, and at least western Anatolia should be comfortably greek and christian for now.
 
I think that a lot of Alexandros II's reign would be him legitimising the despotate, since I think he'd want the legitimacy and prestige that would come from it. I'd expect him to fight the Ottomans as the Serbs disintegrate after Dusan. There's a huge possibility that Alexandros II would be the first conquerer of the Despotate, as I think he will launch at least one or two wars to expand the power of the Despotate.

Ultimately though I hope the Despotate launches a few crusades in North Africa. Putting Morocco under Despotate rule would ensure that the Despotate can travel through the Straits of Gibraltar a lot more easily and allow them to explore the world beyond the Med.
Well, that is a bit tricky...while the Lascarid Despotate represents an older claim to Hauteville Sicily, they became, willingly, vassals to the new claim of the House Anjou...which kinda explains quite why Louis of Tarent reacted as he did. He can hedge for time, accepting the truce, waiting for a better time to regain the lost provinces. Same goes for the Hungarian Anjou.
On the other hand, the Aragonese already accepted the loss of Sicily once(against the Anjou), so their claim has weakened somewhat. I´d expect the Vatatzes play up the fact that Constance(Anna) was the 'eldest' child born from Bianca Lancia a bit more, perhaps building some new burial place for the empress...

If the LD allies with Castilia in the future Granada might or might not become a ally. In the OTL it was a vassal to Castilia, but, who knows, perhaps the LD ruffels feathers with the kingdom and helps Granada keeping their independence
 
Top