The eagle's left head

[Xenophonte]

Problem is that the Palaiologos have completely squandered the potential of the ERE by giving out massive land grants and tax exemptions to aristocrats with little to no military obligations as a price for helping them take over the throne. What is already given cannot easily be taken back except through force, and in the end the Laskarids were deposed primarily because they tried to fight those corrupt aristocrat for resources. Even if the Laskarids were to find themselves back on the throne right now, they would have to fight those corrupt aristocrats and possibly the church as well for the revenue of those lands. Plus, the Byzantine system of anyone and their mother having a claim to the throne is clearly inferior to the western one, so I believe a degree of deep cleansing and replacing the elite with more loyal and Western-minded ones is somewhat of a necessity.

Well, the Vatatzes' Despotate, could, perhaps establish with all their holdings their own rival Byzantine Empire like Nicaea or Trebizond against the Latin ruled one. Or, perhaps, o more appropriately even could follow a similar way to the OTL Ottomans followed and slowly would go taking all the Empires' territories until would be in position to lay siege in an isolated Constantinople. But, anyway, (even if clearly, another civil war would be the last thing that the Empires would need), if it would come to this, the things would in certain way simplify the things. Given, that the Magnates or Patriarchate Hierarchies supporting the losing side, would ha ve their lands confiscated. Also, even if avoiding those so extreme situations, the land (latifundia) possession/tax system structure and the Byzantines magnates power position in relation with their emperor, would,IMO, be radically changed with a new emperor which would count with his own independent source of resources and manpower.

They would also alienate their Latin subjects if they don’t convert, which they now have many, in both Sicily and in the remnant of the Latin Empire itself. Hence the need for a compromised approach. Union of Churches. Recognise the pope as the supreme leader, but have the Church remain under Byzantine rite. Have a very clear agreement with the pope.

To be in communion with the western Church and the Pope yes. To abandon Eastern Christianity no.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Uniate_Church&ved=2ahUKEwim-cyxrbj9AhU8TaQEHZvcCVkQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1wa6akT2DSDFhianx5c2-P (Uniate Churchs)

First, step would be to take into account that the terms matter and this OTL one have their own meaning and that for the Easterns 'Union' had to mean or so was interpreted as submitting and renouncing to their own tradition, language and doctrine. Thus, I would suggest to start for eliminate any reference to 'conversion' or to 'union' and to use the more appropriated of 'reconciliation' ((between long estranged sisters Churches).
But, in more practical terms would be ideal if (taking advantage of incoming the Leadership/Schismatic crisis) and rejecting the Papacy Ultramontanism would be possible come to apply a more or less similar concept to that the actual canonical one of Sui Iuris Churches. That the Christendom is formed by a serie of Autonomous/Particulate Churches that if well under the Papal direction, they still have their own elect/chosen leaders and keep their own finances, rites/liturgy/liturgical languages. Of course that in normal times and for most of the Roman Pontiffs, it would be considered unacceptable.
Of course, this would assume and taking a step further to the above mentioned, that the Bishop of Rome, only would be recognized/accepted, 'only' as Primus inter Pares. Now, of course, barring some sort of unlikely sort of compromise respect to doctrinal independence, it, the doctrinal differences would be an extremely important matter, if not the most, and one that would have to be tackled. Before to think to any kind of possible reconciliation that would allow the reunion from both Churches.

 

[Avrorrange]

I could see the Vatatzes replacing the barons with local elites or with exiled elites that Vatatzes brought along to Sicily/from Asia Minor. The nobles obviously would be horrified by it but I won't see the peasantry complaining about this.

That's the difficult bit actually. These guys have their own armies and castles. They are MUCH more heavily armed than the Byzantine nobles. It is far more difficult to take them out with military force than the Byzantine nobles hence why I advocated compromising with the Latin nobles and use their military force to crack down on the Byzantine nobles to get their goods.

I think the Lucerans get fucked over as per otl tho. idk about their fate @Lascaris

Yeah we'll wait and see.

tbf the problem is that they can't afford to piss off the greeks in the islands and being orthodox is a large part of it.

Maybe later it would work (ionias converts?), especially as the Empire collapses and the Vatatzes needs the French to help them, especially as the Serbians and everyone else falters and falls. I do think a period of time where Constantinople is taken would be a very fun scenario as it'd really solidify Old Hellas and especially Southern Italy as Greek and part of the Empire tho. We'd also prob see an earlier Renaissance as the Despotate of the two Sicilies brings in Greek texts and causes them to be popular in Europe earlier than otl. So I think long term it'd make sense but for now converting is of no use for the Vatatzes family.

I think we'd see a Neo-Byzantine rite where it's even closer to Orthodoxy for the Sicilians and Greeks under the despotate.

To be honest, I think it depends entirely on how the Laskarids present it and how willing the Pope is to negotiate terms.

On other things considering the collapse of the Byzantines after Andronikos I could see the Desoptate taking over the rest of Morea, Epirus and Athens and treat the commoners well, but it would incur the wrath of Venice. A Venice-Despotate war is defo something I could see coming. Maybe they bring Genoa as their allies and give them trading rights? What would their relations be with Serbia too?

I don't see the Despotate and the ERE being of good terms because there's no way in hell Andronikos would see Alexandros' incursions in the mainland well, especially as Morea is now the property of Alexandros. Charles II is really sly giving that land to Alexandros. It ties him to Naples and pits him against the ERE and Frederick. It also is an opportunity for Alexandros and his descendants.

Finally would moving the capital to Messania be a good move for Alexandros' descendants? Being in the straits would be great and they would be a sea-faring empire anyways, and they'd be in the centre of their italian pocessions.

PS: if the Despotate gets Crete back from one of its revolts (the 1362 revolt would be a good one) it'd be great for the despotate.

Yeah, WAR is coming. If they only got Sicily but not the rest of the mainland then Messina is definitely a good place for capital.

Well, the Vatatzes' Despotate, could, perhaps establish with all their holdings their own rival Byzantine Empire like Nicaea or Trebizond against the Latin ruled one. Or, perhaps, o more appropriately even could follow a similar way to the OTL Ottomans followed and slowly would go taking all the Empires' territories until would be in position to lay siege in an isolated Constantinople. But, anyway, (even if clearly, another civil war would be the last thing that the Empires would need), if it would come to this, the things would in certain way simplify the things. Given, that the Magnates or Patriarchate Hierarchies supporting the losing side, would ha ve their lands confiscated. Also, even if avoiding those so extreme situations, the land (latifundia) possession/tax system structure and the Byzantines magnates power position in relation with their emperor, would,IMO, be radically changed with a new emperor which would count with his own independent source of resources and manpower.

I think they definitely should slowly add more territories like the Ottomans. The whole infrastructure of the empire has collapsed under the Palaiologos and a quick conquest would necessitate handing a lot of power to the local elite--the same shit bags who made the collapse possible in the first place.

First, step would be to take into account that the terms matter and this OTL one have their own meaning and that for the Easterns 'Union' had to mean or so was interpreted as submitting and renouncing to their own tradition, language and doctrine. Thus, I would suggest to start for eliminate any reference to 'conversion' or to 'union' and to use the more appropriated of 'reconciliation' ((between long estranged sisters Churches).

Agree.

But, in more practical terms would be ideal if (taking advantage of incoming the Leadership/Schismatic crisis) and rejecting the Papacy Ultramontanism would be possible come to apply a more or less similar concept to that the actual canonical one of Sui Iuris Churches. That the Christendom is formed by a serie of Autonomous/Particulate Churches that if well under the Papal direction, they still have their own elect/chosen leaders and keep their own finances, rites/liturgy/liturgical languages. Of course that in normal times and for most of the Roman Pontiffs, it would be considered unacceptable.
Of course, this would assume and taking a step further to the above mentioned, that the Bishop of Rome, only would be recognized/accepted, 'only' as Primus inter Pares. Now, of course, barring some sort of unlikely sort of compromise respect to doctrinal independence, it, the doctrinal differences would be an extremely important matter, if not the most, and one that would have to be tackled. Before to think to any kind of possible reconciliation that would allow the reunion from both Churches.

I think accepting papal supremacy is a must, but you can work something out like the various Catholic Churches of the East who while accepting Papal leadership has their own language, rites, elections, autonomy etc as you stated. Depends on how they negotiate it really.

 

[Xenophonte]

I think accepting papal supremacy is a must,

Depends on how they negotiate it really.

Indeed., as I mentioned, in normal times and for most Roman Pontiffs, it would be a precondition... But, again, these aren't ones and given the per OTL incoming schismatic/leadership crisis, could offer a very advantageous window of opportunity for any 'reconciliation' attempt between both Churches.

 

[Quinkana]

That's the difficult bit actually. These guys have their own armies and castles. They are MUCH more heavily armed than the Byzantine nobles. It is far more difficult to take them out with military force than the Byzantine nobles hence why I advocated compromising with the Latin nobles and use their military force to crack down on the Byzantine nobles to get their goods.

Doing it by actual conquest is the best option for the Vatatzes because you get a free card to murder them all and put your ppl in and restructure everything.

Yeah, WAR is coming. If they only got Sicily but not the rest of the mainland then Messina is definitely a good place for capital.

Yeah if they don't get Naples Messania seems like a good place to have an administrative capital on, and shows that they care about Calabria, which is always a good thing. Idk how safe it is from naval invasions tho.

I think they definitely should slowly add more territories like the Ottomans. The whole infrastructure of the empire has collapsed under the Palaiologos and a quick conquest would necessitate handing a lot of power to the local elite--the same shit bags who made the collapse possible in the first place.

Ye. I think they should take over old Hellas first tho, especially Morea, Epirus and Athens when the Serbians roll down and take over everything.

Indeed., as I mentioned, in normal times and for most Roman Pontiffs, it would be a precondition... But, again, these aren't ones and given the per OTL incoming schismatic/leadership crisis, could offer a very advantageous window of opportunity for any 'reconciliation' attempt between both Churches.

I agree. I think them being able to play off the popes would work wonders on getting consessions, like using Greek (done in byzantine rite already) and using terms like 'the pictures are for assistance in service' clearly. Tbf I think this is a concession that could be done for all rites too considering that the Greeks aren't begging.

I could see them being able to choose their own bishops but they can't fuck with Catholic politics.

Also that we'd prob see the rite be called the 'Neo-Byzantine rite' as the Byzantine rite is something that started in the 9th century and prob should have significant differences by this point in time.

 

[Avrorrange]

Doing it by actual conquest is the best option for the Vatatzes because you get a free card to murder them all and put your ppl in and restructure everything.

Yeah if they don't get Naples Messania seems like a good place to have an administrative capital on, and shows that they care about Calabria, which is always a good thing. Idk how safe it is from naval invasions tho.

Ye. I think they should take over old Hellas first tho, especially Morea, Epirus and Athens when the Serbians roll down and take over everything.

I agree. I think them being able to play off the popes would work wonders on getting consessions, like using Greek and using terms like 'the pictures are for assistance in service' clearly. Tbf I think this is a concession that could be done for all rites too considering that the Greeks aren't begging.

Hence why I am saying take it slow and snuff out the Orthodox elites in the Balkans. They suck militarily but are corrupt as fuck. At least the Latin nobles still fight for the state. They don’t. Because the Laskarids have their own independent powerbase and elites they can play Bill the Conqueror with the Orthodox nobles.

 

[Quinkana]

Well, the Vatatzes' Despotate, could, perhaps establish with all their holdings their own rival Byzantine Empire like Nicaea or Trebizond against the Latin ruled one. Or, perhaps, o more appropriately even could follow a similar way to the OTL Ottomans followed and slowly would go taking all the Empires' territories until would be in position to lay siege in an isolated Constantinople. But, anyway, (even if clearly, another civil war would be the last thing that the Empires would need), if it would come to this, the things would in certain way simplify the things. Given, that the Magnates or Patriarchate Hierarchies supporting the losing side, would ha ve their lands confiscated. Also, even if avoiding those so extreme situations, the land (latifundia) possession/tax system structure and the Byzantines magnates power position in relation with their emperor, would,IMO, be radically changed with a new emperor which would count with his own independent source of resources and manpower.

Yep them acting in their interests and perhaps against the interests of the ERE is very possible and even expected as they already hold Morea now. Tbf a good thing about conquest is that taking out the enemy also means you take over their lands, which makes restructuring the place possible.

First, step would be to take into account that the terms matter and this OTL one have their own meaning and that for the Easterns 'Union' had to mean or so was interpreted as submitting and renouncing to their own tradition, language and doctrine. Thus, I would suggest to start for eliminate any reference to 'conversion' or to 'union' and to use the more appropriated of 'reconciliation' ((between long estranged sisters Churches).
But, in more practical terms would be ideal if (taking advantage of incoming the Leadership/Schismatic crisis) and rejecting the Papacy Ultramontanism would be possible come to apply a more or less similar concept to that the actual canonical one of Sui Iuris Churches. That the Christendom is formed by a serie of Autonomous/Particulate Churches that if well under the Papal direction, they still have their own elect/chosen leaders and keep their own finances, rites/liturgy/liturgical languages. Of course that in normal times and for most of the Roman Pontiffs, it would be considered unacceptable.
Of course, this would assume and taking a step further to the above mentioned, that the Bishop of Rome, only would be recognized/accepted, 'only' as Primus inter Pares. Now, of course, barring some sort of unlikely sort of compromise respect to doctrinal independence, it, the doctrinal differences would be an extremely important matter, if not the most, and one that would have to be tackled. Before to think to any kind of possible reconciliation that would allow the reunion from both Churches.

I do agree on these things and probably a few things would be worded differently too, like the pictures being used to visualize the saints and god. But I think the reconsilation would only work if the Greek orthodox population feels that their church life is the same as before. Considering the Vatatzes are the descendants of the Lascarids they have the best shot in doing it. Maybe the clergy would be the most opposed to it instead!

 

[Quinkana]

Hence why I am saying take it slow and snuff out the Orthodox elites in the Balkans. They suck militarily but are corrupt as fuck. At least the Latin nobles still fight for the state. They don’t. Because the Laskarids have their own independent powerbase and elites they can play Bill the Conqueror with the Orthodox nobles.

Oh definitely, and they can prob put a few former peasants on noble positions too, including former mercenaries that know the only reason they control the land is due to the grace of the despot/emperor. The Vatatzes also have good generals while being in a good position to exploit the chaos that's about to happen in the future.

Tbf idk how Alexandros stays out of the conflict but I could see Alexandros profiting off both sides not trying to get him involved. Maybe Frederick and Charles ii gives him a bunch of islands? I don't see either giving Alexandros more of Sicily or Naples unless things get that bad. After all the navies of Alexandros have shown to be decisive in the last war, and Charles II gaining the navy of Alexandros would be terrible for Frederick, especially if Charles II also allows him to keep what he had taken over, especially the islands.

 

[Xenophonte]

Maybe the clergy would be the most opposed to it instead!

More like the Hierarchy and, IMO, the Monks... Given that if would be possible get the support, (even if a conditional one) from the Mt Athos community,it could very well turn key for the success chances of any kind os reconciliation project, at least among the Eastern/Greek Orthodox population.

 

[Quinkana]

More like the Hierarchy and, IMO, the Monks... Given that if would be possible get the support, (even if a conditional one) from the Mt Athos community,it could very well turn key for the success chances of any kind os reconciliation project, at least among the Eastern/Greek Orthodox population.

That makes sense, and tbf it'd be a fight between who (the monks and the despote) has more power over the masses. I could see both sides coming to blows if they try a uniate church tho.

Ps the first thing I thought was when I saw mt Athos was like mt Olympus so I immediately thought of pagans and had a good laugh out of that.

 

[goumaister]

Uniting the Churches under the Pope will never be popular for the Greeks. They see themselves as the righteous ones why would they be kneeling to a heretic? I mean it is all in the name: Orthodox. No matter if the changes are small the Greeks kept their faith for 200 years of Catholic rule in the mainland and far more in Crete, Cyprus and the Ionian Islands. Any ruler forcing them to convert would be unpopular. Any ruler who submits to the Pope will lose prestige. I mean the basileus is the rightful ruler under god, he appoints the patriarch not the other way around!

Of course the Vatatzes might in name only kneel to the Pope later on if they find themselves isolated. But if they have a strong power base like the Normans before them they could easily fight the Pope. If one looks at how much the Popes tried and failed to kick out the Normans one could see that everything is up to how powerful you are.

As I see it Alexandros has 0 chances of kneeling to the Pope and if we look at the Sicilians themselves they were excommunicated for wanting independence so a nice propaganda could keep the populace angry enough with the Pope to not be a problem that a heretic is in charge. Also if one state like Aragon , France or Hungary later on will want to claim the throne of Naples or Sicily being Catholic won't be a huge help either way as strong states have more influence with the Pope. One could actually just look at the war of the vespers and see that Aragon itself got excommunicated while being Catholic.

As for the Balkan nobles. They are far easier to deal with than the Latins for the exact reason that was stated. They don't have castles or large armies. The armies on the east are based more on the local farmers and the state rather than the feudal lords and that is not necessarily a bad thing. It just needs a good ruler to clear the nobles and give lands to loyal people and all is done. Serbia had a very good nobility and a very strong fighting force, so did Bulgaria. The rulers of those states broke them really not the nobility. The nobles get what is given to them so just reign them in.

 

[X Oristos]

A comment on the manpower of the Principality of Morea.

At 1280, the bailli of Morea had under his direct command 176 heavy cavalry and 104 crossbowmen (a few of them mounted), even with Laconia lost. My guess is that these men were supported from the princely fiefs. An estimation of the manpower available to the barons is around 500 heavy cavalry. Overall, the figure of 700 heavy horse of Morea seems plausible even post-Pelagonia.

This number is very interesting, because it is also the reported number of cavalry deployed by the Sicilians during the OTL Vespers. In TTL Frederick commands a much diminished host, just those of the populous western half of the island. Already Alexandros is a peer with Frederick. When he will be able to tap the morean assets, he will have a significantly larger force than his sovereign.

 

[Quinkana]

A comment on the manpower of the Principality of Morea.

At 1280, the bailli of Morea had under his direct command 176 heavy cavalry and 104 crossbowmen (a few of them mounted), even with Laconia lost. My guess is that these men were supported from the princely fiefs. An estimation of the manpower available to the barons is around 500 heavy cavalry. Overall, the figure of 700 heavy horse of Morea seems plausible even post-Pelagonia.

This number is very interesting, because it is also the reported number of cavalry deployed by the Sicilians during the OTL Vespers. In TTL Frederick commands a much diminished host, just those of the populous western half of the island. Already Alexandros is a peer with Frederick. When he will be able to tap the morean assets, he will have a significantly larger force than his sovereign.

Yeah considering Morea and Calabria if Frederick is disliked by the nobles of Sicily there is a good chance that they could take the crown for themselves and get excommunicated which really isn't that bad for Sicily.

That's why Charles II wants Alexandros to be in the fold. It makes a victory against the Sicilians very possible. The only problem in Alexandros' eyes is that he could claim the island entirely and if he plays his cards right his descendants can claim Naples and Greece too.

 

[Avrorrange]

Uniting the Churches under the Pope will never be popular for the Greeks. They see themselves as the righteous ones why would they be kneeling to a heretic? I mean it is all in the name: Orthodox. No matter if the changes are small the Greeks kept their faith for 200 years of Catholic rule in the mainland and far more in Crete, Cyprus and the Ionian Islands. Any ruler forcing them to convert would be unpopular. Any ruler who submits to the Pope will lose prestige. I mean the basileus is the rightful ruler under god, he appoints the patriarch not the other way around!

No doubt, but you see, the Greeks of this period were such a bunch of losers(no offense, EDIT: I meant that the complete mess of their society and government, not the people themselves) that their opinions are kind of irrelevant. Even a lot of them would join the Ottoman armies, willingly or otherwise. As the Ottomans would prove, it’s the man carrying the big swords around that rules, and who gives you the bigger swords? The pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople who even sucked up to the infidel if he kept his life? With time, skill and some incentives, a ‘reconciliation’ would work.

Of course the Vatatzes might in name only kneel to the Pope later on if they find themselves isolated. But if they have a strong power base like the Normans before them they could easily fight the Pope. If one looks at how much the Popes tried and failed to kick out the Normans one could see that everything is up to how powerful you are.

As I see it Alexandros has 0 chances of kneeling to the Pope and if we look at the Sicilians themselves they were excommunicated for wanting independence so a nice propaganda could keep the populace angry enough with the Pope to not be a problem that a heretic is in charge. Also if one state like Aragon , France or Hungary later on will want to claim the throne of Naples or Sicily being Catholic won't be a huge help either way as strong states have more influence with the Pope. One could actually just look at the war of the vespers and see that Aragon itself got excommunicated while being Catholic.

The Kings of Aragon got excommunicated because their taking of the Sicilian throne ran against the pope granting Sicily to the French in the first place. When all is said and then, the Pope relented and compromised with whoever’s in charge of Sicily. Since then, the popes have consistently sided with the local rulers of Palermo/Naples against the foreign leaders who tried to claim the Palermo/Neapolitan throne. That would not be done if the Laskarids remained ‘Schismatic’ Greeks. As the Hohenstaufens themselves would prove, you may not consistently fight the pope if they consistently authorise foreign powers to takeover your lands. Furthermore, if the Laskarids were to actually turn their attention to Greece, they would not have the strength and resources to fight a two front war, against both a major kingdom like France and the Ottomans. Throw in the mix of offering to turn Greece and Anatolia ‘Catholic’ however and you most likely have the Popes actually backing the Laskarids against the other kings, given the popes were very consistent in their support of kings who fight ‘infidels’, to the point where they sometimes excommunicate people who attacks their lands.

EDIT:When I said that the Greeks were 'losers', I meant that their society and government was a complete mess, not that the people themselves were bad.Apologies for the poor choice of words.

 

[goumaister]

@darthfanta The Ottomans became the fear of Europe with the Pope against them and with the Byzantine lands as their main core so I can't see why wouldn't a Christian State take its place given a series of good/capable rulers. No doubt things would be better if the Vatatzes bow to the Pope but here comes the hindsight that we have and it doesn't consider how the people of the era feel. As you said the man with the bigger sword makes the rules and for a century that man would definitely won't be the Pope and till the Pope returns to Rome who knows how the Vatatzes despotate will be?

 

[Avrorrange]

@darthfanta The Ottomans became the fear of Europe with the Pope against them and with the Byzantine lands as their main core so I can't see why wouldn't a Christian State take its place given a series of good/capable rulers. No doubt things would be better if the Vatatzes bow to the Pope but here comes the hindsight that we have and it doesn't consider how the people of the era feel. As you said the man with the bigger sword makes the rules and for a century that man would definitely won't be the Pope and till the Pope returns to Rome who knows how the Vatatzes despotate will be?

The pope can still authorise people to take Sicily even if they are in Avignon. It’s not as though being in Avignon meant that they will be there for decades doing absolutely nothing. A schismatic being in charge of Sicily is also totally unacceptable to everyone. For any chance of compromising with Hungary, France and Aragon, a conversion is a must. That is really the most feasible way of getting a secure powerbase that could strike into the Balkans.

Because of how badly run the Byzantine state was, just how pillaged it was, and the fact that it will be in the crossfire of wars between multiple states in the future, it will take some time before it could be turned into a productive land that could be core of any future state. It would have to be the Sicilian lands that do the heavy lifting.

As for the Vatatzes themselves, they are currently under all kinds of pressure to compromise. They don’t control a lot of mainland Greece currently, so it’s not like they have any plan to play hearts and minds with the Greeks of mainland Greece either.It’s relations with their Latin subjects and overlords that they need to worry about.Naples/Palermo may well worth a Catholic mass at one point in time for them. A ‘union’ of the Churches is legitimately a movement in this period, so it’s not out of place for the Vatatzes to contemplate about it.Resistance is mainly from people who don’t have the responsibilities of thinking how the state is run.

 

[Lascaris]

No doubt, but you see, the Greeks of this period were such a bunch of losers(no offense) that their opinions are kind of irrelevant. Even a lot of them would join the Ottoman armies, willingly or otherwise. As the Ottomans would prove, it’s the man carrying the big swords around that rules, and who gives you the bigger swords?

I'll just note that if the Latin nobility in the crusader states in Greece were supposedly militarily superior to their Greek counterparts... well they failed to prove it in the battlefield. It's the Despotate of the Morea that conquered the principality of Achaea frex and not the other way round despite the despotate holding only Laconia and Achaea all the rest of the Peloponnese and for that matter periodic bouts of outside support to Achaea. So who's carrying the bigger swords, the Achaean barons or the Peloponnesian stradioti?

The pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople who even sucked up to the infidel if he kept his life? With time, skill and some incentives, a ‘reconciliation’ would work.

Gennadius, can be accused of being traitorous scum, but not of becoming collaborator to save his skin. He rather thought of Ottoman rule with him running the church as preferable to union of the churches.

 

[Avrorrange]

I'll just note that if the Latin nobility in the crusader states in Greece were supposedly militarily superior to their Greek counterparts... well they failed to prove it in the battlefield. It's the Despotate of the Morea that conquered the principality of Achaea frex and not the other way round despite the despotate holding only Laconia and Achaea all the rest of the Peloponnese and for that matter periodic bouts of outside support to Achaea. So who's carrying the bigger swords, the Achaean barons or the Peloponnesian stradioti?

The Latin nobility in Frankokratia had a low population base they could levy for warfare. So them getting thrashed wasn’t that surprising, but the fact that they were created and lasted so long was really an example of the Byzantines punching well below their weight. Conversely, can the same be said when the Byzantine states try to fight proper Latin states like Venice and Genoa? They even got thrashed in Rhodes when the Hospitallers invaded them.

Gennadius, can be accused of being traitorous scum, but not of becoming collaborator to save his skin. He rather thought of Ottoman rule with him running the church as preferable to union of the churches.

The latter patriarchs all bowed to the Ottomans and were definitely collaborators. The fact that this guy actually served as patriarch under Ottoman rule does classify him as a collaborator. Look at how the patriarch in 1204 behaved vs these guys. Nobody tried to flee to Morea where the Romans/Byzantines still had control.

 

[Lascaris]

The Latin nobility in Frankokratia had a low population base they could levy for warfare. So them getting thrashed wasn’t that surprising, but the fact that they were created and lasted so long was really an example of the Byzantines punching well below their weight. Conversely, can the same be said when the Byzantine states try to fight proper Latin states like Venice and Genoa?

Alexios Kallergis would like a word with you. Unless you think Venice being forced to come to terms with the Cretan rebels in 1299 after fighting and failing to subdue them for a mere 18 years was proof of the Serenissima's military superiority.

They even got thrashed in Rhodes when the Hospitallers invaded them.

Which, and the general collapse of Byzantine military strength, compared to Michael VIII's time can be directly attributed to Andronicus II... and the unfortunate inability of Byzantines to stick to tradition and have a coup sending him him to the nearest monastery early in his reign.., but that's a different matter.

The latter patriarchs all bowed to the Ottomans and were definitely collaborators. The fact that this guy actually served as patriarch under Ottoman rule does classify him as a collaborator. Look at how the patriarch in 1204 behaved vs these guys. Nobody tried to flee to Morea where the Romans/Byzantines still had control.

It classifies him as a bloody traitor but someone will tell us that we are putting 19th century notions to the 15th century. Then given that the first anti-Ottoman uprisings in Greece are as early as the 1460s I'll stick to calling him a bloody traitor.

 

[Avrorrange]

Alexios Kallergis would like a word with you. Unless you think Venice being forced to come to terms with the Cretan rebels in 1299 after fighting and failing to subdue them for a mere 18 years was proof of the Serenissima's military superiority.

The Cretan rebels were brutally divided and also failed to eject Venice and many of them were forced into exile in the service of the emperor. The Serenissima in this period was also able to project expeditionary armies overseas far larger than anything any of the Byzantine rulers were able to raise.

Which, and the general collapse of Byzantine military strength, compared to Michael VIII's time can be directly attributed to Andronicus II... and the unfortunate inability of Byzantines to stick to tradition and have a coup sending him him to the nearest monastery early in his reign.., but that's a different matter.

Which is the point here. With the collapse of the Byzantine military and financial system, there's really little the Byzantine society as a whole could do to a determined invasion by a foreign state, whose rulers could re-mould and recentralize society far better than an existing Byzantine ruler who had to work within the system. The damage done by Andronikos II wasn't really something you can easily change by just switching the ruler.

It classifies him as a bloody traitor but someone will tell us that we are putting 19th century notions to the 15th century. Then given that the first anti-Ottoman uprisings in Greece are as early as the 1460s I'll stick to calling him a bloody traitor.

A traitor is the same as a collaborator...... At any rate, I don't think it's wrong to classify him as a traitor/collaborator considering we already have the example of John X of Constantinople, who fled to other Byzantine-ruled lands instead of working under the Latins.

 

[Xenophonte]

but you see, the Greeks of this period were such a bunch of losers(no offense) that their opinions are kind of irrelevant.

I beg to differ in such generalization, given that,IMO, from interpretation of the period, it was the socio-political system in which they were immerse/raised that usually determined and help to explained their attitudes and behaviour. Same ones that, lets not forget that were exacerbated by the State/Imperial weakness and political fragmentation plus the infighing that not only not left them with no practical way out to their situation but also exacerbate it.

Even a lot of them would join the Ottoman armies, willingly or otherwise.

From which, would serve as evidence, again, IMO, the careers and life of so many of those sames ones, that as you noted, were willingly or forceful inducted into the Ottoman State such as Zaganos Pasha, Pasha Angelović or Mesih Pasha.
Edit. Also, about the notion that would be any intrinsic Latin war skills/ thoughteness, superiority over the Greeks, I think that would be disproved remembering/looking at the results of the Latin/Western Crusades/expeditions against the Ottomans such as Nicopolis or Varna.