So, as we all know, after they deposition and the fourth crusade, the Komnenian dynasty ended up ruling in Trebizond. With a POD after the sack of Constantinople (or the deposition of Alexios III if you prefer), would it be possible for Alexios and David with the support of the Georgians, to become the leaders of the byzantine resistance in Asia instead of the Laskaris and Vatatzes before proceeding with the recovery of Europe. Would this alternate “nicean” empire benefit from the rule of a legitimate imperial dynasty (possibly avoiding the usurpation of Michael VIII) and the addition of Pontus to its control?
Komnenian Nicea
- Thread starter Flavius Iulius Nepos
- Start date
Would it be possible for the Komnenoi to restore their rule over Anatolia and Bulgaria? And what about the religious situation with the separation between latins and romans?
From Wikipedia
“Vasiliev points out that the brothers occupied Trebizond too early to have done so in response to the Crusaders capturing Constantinople; Alexios and David began their march on Trebizond before news of the sack of Constantinople on 13 April 1204 could reach either Trebizond or Georgia. According to Vasiliev, however, their original intention was not to seize a base from which they could recover the capital of the Byzantine Empire, but rather to carve out of the Byzantine Empire a buffer state to protect Georgia from the Seljuk Turks.[22] Kuršanskis, while agreeing with Vasiliev that Tamar was motivated by revenge for Alexios Angelos's insult, proposed a more obvious motivation for the brother's return to Byzantine territory: they had decided to raise the banner of revolt, depose Alexios Angelos, and return the imperial throne to the Komnenosdynasty. However, not long after they had gained control of Trebizond and the neighboring territories, news of the Latin conquest of Constantinople reached them, and the brothers entered the competition for recovery of the imperial city against Theodore I Laskaris in western Anatolia (ruler of the "Empire of Nicaea") and Michael Komnenos Doukas in mainland Greece (ruler of the "Despotate of Epirus").[23]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Trebizond
“Vasiliev points out that the brothers occupied Trebizond too early to have done so in response to the Crusaders capturing Constantinople; Alexios and David began their march on Trebizond before news of the sack of Constantinople on 13 April 1204 could reach either Trebizond or Georgia. According to Vasiliev, however, their original intention was not to seize a base from which they could recover the capital of the Byzantine Empire, but rather to carve out of the Byzantine Empire a buffer state to protect Georgia from the Seljuk Turks.[22] Kuršanskis, while agreeing with Vasiliev that Tamar was motivated by revenge for Alexios Angelos's insult, proposed a more obvious motivation for the brother's return to Byzantine territory: they had decided to raise the banner of revolt, depose Alexios Angelos, and return the imperial throne to the Komnenosdynasty. However, not long after they had gained control of Trebizond and the neighboring territories, news of the Latin conquest of Constantinople reached them, and the brothers entered the competition for recovery of the imperial city against Theodore I Laskaris in western Anatolia (ruler of the "Empire of Nicaea") and Michael Komnenos Doukas in mainland Greece (ruler of the "Despotate of Epirus").[23]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Trebizond
Personally, I think it is more likely to have them be joint leaders with Laskaris and Vatatzes, essentially a power-sharing agreement that divides their jurisdiction (Alexios and David effectively having dominion over their current lands, and effectively the Black Sea coast (outside of Thrace & Bulgaria)), or established Alexios or David as Kaiser. (Obvious subsequent PoD involving death of Laskaris and Vatatzes.
Alternatively, you could have Trebizond do something drastic - ally with the Mongols against the Sultanate, and then Nicaea/Constantinople. Effectively agreeing to become the regions Moscow if they can be established. Combine that with bringing Turks INSIDE their administration as long as they convert, and you could have a very interesting route for the Romans - Greek speaking Turks has lovely echos of Pontus IMO. Potentially Ghazis be swayed by unleashing them on Serbia and Catholic Europe, whilst the Empire rebuilds and converts its Turkish population.
Alternatively, you could have Trebizond do something drastic - ally with the Mongols against the Sultanate, and then Nicaea/Constantinople. Effectively agreeing to become the regions Moscow if they can be established. Combine that with bringing Turks INSIDE their administration as long as they convert, and you could have a very interesting route for the Romans - Greek speaking Turks has lovely echos of Pontus IMO. Potentially Ghazis be swayed by unleashing them on Serbia and Catholic Europe, whilst the Empire rebuilds and converts its Turkish population.
I don't think the Komnenoi started their expedition with the intention of building just a small buffer state vassal of Georgia, true now the Angeloi were out of the game, but the latins were even worse. The Angeloi were usurpers related to the Komnenoi, the Latins were foreign usurpers. But here now I would like to ask why was Western Anatolia impossible to capture?
Surely the Laskaris were competent leaders compared to the Angeloi but they were also weaker: the only controlled a small fraction of Anatolia and they were constantly attacked (during the first years) by turks,latins and even some byzantine landowners. Meanwhile the Komnenoi had the control of a rich portion of Anatolia and the support of a respectable power like Georgia. I'm not so pessimist about their chance, however I recognize it would take lot of time for them to restore the empire of their grandfather.
Wouldn't this kind of deal marginalize the importance of the Komnenoi, due to their geograpical position. Basically the Nicene would be responsible for the recovery of Constantinople while Trebizond just stay idle. I'm not against this idea but I would like to see a Komnenos as the "official" leader of the empire while allowing the Laskaris to retain their regional power in Asia. The use of the Mongols against the turks would be very interesting (especially if the Komnenoi finally restore their rule over the region), but wouldn't their use against other byzantine entities damage the economy and population of this region? It could be very dangerous for the Komnenoi and their prestige to use the mongols against fellow romans, especially against rich cities that could become the targets of mongol desire for loot.
They may not need to if they can use them to wrangle a Turkish army, but it wouldn't be the first time that Romans have used outside forces to establish themselves. But there is a very important benefit this Roman Empire would have. During the Nicaean Empire there were some travellers who came back with news of Chinese gunpowder, and guns. It isn't impossible that the western end of the Mongol Empire invests in access to gunpowder to build a proto-gunpowder army, which is much better placed to face off in the Balkans than the Mongols would be - allowing the Romans to expand 'Mongol' dominion.
In your opinion, how long would it takes for the Romans to get rid of their status of vassal and integrate again their new Turkish subjects?
I think vassal status would probably (nominally) last until the collapse of the Ilkhanate due to the Black Death - as that collapses, the Romans are still rocked by the Black Death as per OTL.
But to fully integrate the Turks? I think realistically it'll be the 15-1600s before they're synonymous with Roman. The Anatolian Plateau has been Turkified by this point for two centuries, so it is entrenched. Merging Turk and Greek, and converting them (or adapting to a multi-faith Empire, a less likely approach IMO). However this is different if the Romans take advantage of the Mongols in specific ways. Giving them Turks as levies, and resettling families of Turks throughout Roman territory, and creating Greek settlements in Turkey is a possibility, and the task under Ilkhanate Rule. (In fact, a peculiar advantage for the Romans is that if they invade Serbia to gather booty for the Ilkhanate, they can do the same to Serbia).
There is a risk of a Post-Ilkhanate Turkish rebellion, but by this point the Turks have worked with the Romans, and the Romans have had enough time to redevelop a standing army of Greeks that I can't see it happening. The Romans have integrated group after group after group. Bringing the Turks into the Empire is more a case of settlement and conversion IMO.
What do you think about the religious aspect? Would it be possible for and independent and stronger empire to negotiate with Rome the question of the Schism in a more favorable position than OTL? What kind of a deal could they expect from this negotiation?
Almost certainly. In fact, I also think the Mongols might provide (some) groundwork for this. Whilst IOTL the Pope and Mongols had a positive relationship (the Mongols even offering to restore Jerusalem in exchange for submission) - having the Ecumenical Patriarch and Orthodox Christianity is a token. "Submit, or we give it to the Orthodox". Assuming that they DO give it to the Romans, the Romans have at least 3 Pentarchs under there sway at this point, 4 if Alexandria is given to them (doubtful, but not impossible).
I think likely the Schism will persist. Which is good and bad. It is good for the Romans as they are free from Papal interference and empty promises, whilst still dividing Christendom (bad). For the Papacy on the other hand, I see no reason why in the long term the Papacy wouldn't fall into the same decadency and corruption as IOTL, meaning any reformation likely may look at the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople as an alternative to the Pope.
Never heard of this. Could you please tell me more about this offer?
Typical France
Always ally with the most "evil" guy around against the HRE
"I'm not evil, I'm differently good!"
It does suggest interesting dynamics between France, the HRE, Pope, Mongols and Komnenid Rhomanion. France vs HRE, the Pope switching between them, the Romans vs the HRE, Mongols vs HRE?, France vs Rome? It is a big old mess that may not be as simple as Catholics vs The Rest.
Utter sidenote, I tried to play as Trebizond in CK2 from 1220. It hurt. My god it hurt.
8k vs 11k, 11k tends to win. (Ouch)
8k vs 11k, 11k tends to win. (Ouch)
Wouldn't be harder for the Komnenoi to recover western anatolia if they have to face a stronger Rum?
the smart-ass answer would be to say that you didn't specify for how long
the constructive one would be something akin to 'the Seljuks could always fall prey to one of their endemic civil wars'
You're proposing that the Komnenoi should wait for their moment of luck. However as luck is an integral part of history I will accept it.the smart-ass answer would be to say that you didn't specify for how long
the constructive one would be something akin to 'the Seljuks could always fall prey to one of their endemic civil wars'
In my opinion trebizond is overpowered in that game, just let the georgians and the bulgarian do their work.