If the Mongols, after sacking Baghdad, decided to invade Anatolia, which in this timeline was controlled by the Byzantine after they won at Myrocephon, how well would the Komenians do, or their successors, assuming they are at least competent as the Macedonian emperors? Let us say that the Byzantines manage to get advance knowledge of the attacks, and they try to stop the Mongols somewhere in the Taurus Mountains, in order to prevent the Mongols from invading the Anatolian interior.
Mongols Vs. Komenian Byzantines
- Thread starter rf_31
- Start date
Assuming a post-Manzikert Byzantine recovery of Asia Minor, any lasting rule would require significant cooperation with a Turkish populace in inner Asia Minor on Constantinople’s part. At best, this means that the Byzantines will have Turkish auxiliaries to call upon against the Mongols, while at worst it creates a potential fifth column of Mongol support behind the Taurus mountains. Either way, though, I find the prospects of the Byzantines being able to decisively check the Mongol advance through conventional land warfare - a strategy only successfully implemented once - rather unlikely. After all, if the Rumelians were unsuccessful against the Mongols without the handicapping elements of a resurgent Bulgarian Empire threatening their western flank, a history of court intrigue weakening their military capacity (something even the Macedonian Emperors faced) and potentially sedition from their eastern provinces, I don’t see the Byzantines doing particularly better.
However, depending on the status of Constantinople - I do believe it would be tennable to attempt a similar strategy to the First and Second Arab Sieges of Constantinople where Asia Minor is ceded but the capital’s defenses maintained - and assuming that the Mongols do not assert long-term domain over Asia Minor, which they did not do OTL, then the Byzantines would be in a better position to recover Asia Minor than the Rumelians were, as their core imperial apparatus would be maintained. That is, of course, assuming that no western powers get involved against a Constantinople that is distracted by the massive Mongol threat to the east, or that the Mongols, who were experts in siege warfare, did not manage to take Constantinople.
However, depending on the status of Constantinople - I do believe it would be tennable to attempt a similar strategy to the First and Second Arab Sieges of Constantinople where Asia Minor is ceded but the capital’s defenses maintained - and assuming that the Mongols do not assert long-term domain over Asia Minor, which they did not do OTL, then the Byzantines would be in a better position to recover Asia Minor than the Rumelians were, as their core imperial apparatus would be maintained. That is, of course, assuming that no western powers get involved against a Constantinople that is distracted by the massive Mongol threat to the east, or that the Mongols, who were experts in siege warfare, did not manage to take Constantinople.
Wouldnt the Byzantines just pay tribute for the Mongols to fk off? Or better yet, to attack Egypt? Isnt that like their go to policy?
The strategic situation is entirely different, though. Baghdad was entirely surrounded by land except for the river, which means that the Mongols could realistically surround it. But between the Bosporus and the Golden Horn this isn't the case for Constantinople. The Mongols managing to actually besiege the city properly would require them to gain supremacy over the Byzantine navy, which IMO is all but ASB. Thus, the City can be resupplied and reinforced indefinitely.
Remember that even in 1453 the Turks had a fantastically hard time taking the city with the aid of artillery and much better supply lines than the Mongols could hope for. Even if they might have ultimately succeeded in storming the walls, they got very lucky with the Kerkoporta being left open. The Mongols didn't have nearly as good shock infantry as the Turks, and would furthermore not have had access to fire artillery.
And this, of course, doesn't even mention the possibility of a common enemy uniting the Latin and Nicean empires at least temporarily.
The Imperial Navy of the Komnenians was not the Imperial Navy that stopped the two Arab Sieges, and the Mongols gaining enough local superiority to force a siege - particularly if they employed allies like the Bulgarians, Venetians, Genovese, basically anyone with a beef with Constantinople - is very plausible. Remember, the Venetians we’re able to raid the Adriatic coast of Greece with impunity during the OTL Komnenians, and the Imperial Navy was all but helpless against the Fourth Crusade. While it’s not cut and dry, a Mongolian or Mongolian-allied Venetian or Bulgarian conquest of Constantinople is quite likely in these circumstances.
Possible but unlikely: (a) Hulagu was anti-Muslim but very sympathetic toward the Christians, (b) Constantinople is on the wrong side of the (admittedly small) sea and (c) I'm not sure at all that the European part of the empire was supposed to be a part of Hulagu's ulus (in OTL he subdued Sultanate of Rum and then went South, not West).
But the gloom and doom scenario is not the most likely one (if only because it assumes the wrong conqueror): in 1265 Nogai crossed the Danube with 20,000 and looted Thrace. After which the Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus gave his daughter Euphrosyne Palaiologina to Nogai as a wife and made a formal alliance with the Golden Horde and in 1280's Niogai sent the Mongolian detachment to help his father in law and then his successor.
So potentially you may have the conflicting interests of the Ilkhanate (Asia Minor) and the Golden Horde (in Europe) settled either by war (which was happening anyway) or by some peaceful arrangements regarding the vassal territories.
This is all nice but mostly based upon a premise that the Mongols were hell-bent upon the complete direct domination and that Ilkhanate was the only player involved on the Mongolian side. Both premises are incorrect:
1st, in OTL the Mongols retained the Seljuks as the formal rulers (under the nominal Mongolian control) of the territories of the former Sultanate of Rum (the same pattern as in Armenia Minor and Kingdom of Georgia).
2nd, since 1665 the Empire was in alliance with the Golden Horde which more or less excludes a possibility of its conquest by IlKhanate. In the scenario where the Empire has greater territories in Asia Minor this alliance may happen even earlier: Berke-Hulagu war happened in 1262. Or, as an alternative, Hulagu, who was sympathetic to the Christians, would make an alliance with the Empire himself.
Miguel Lanius
Banned
Mongols taking Constantinople is entirely ASB, the City was one of the hardest pre-modern positions to take over, if not the hardest.
It will only happen if someone inside arranges it so.
It will only happen if someone inside arranges it so.
Honestly - I expect the Komnenids would choose to play tribute - and perhaps even go so far as to become a full on tributary state - essentially playing the role of Moscow for the Eastern Mediterranean, if they could.
I mean, just look at their position. They've recently fought off the Seljuks to retake Anatolia - who fought in a similar style to the Mongols, but on a whole other level of power, and I doubt it was a great victory. They need time to regroup. So they'll do what China or other states did. Pay tribute, try not to piss them off, and use the security provided by the Mongols on their northern, and eastern borders to focus on other concerns. They could work on the navy, settlement, perhaps even working with the Mongols to serve a different end during the Mongol invasions of the Levant that followed Anatolia.
So yeah - Mongos vs Komnenids = The Komnenos bend the knee out of shrewd prudence. The Roman Empire outlasted the Huns, the Turks, the Avars, they'll outlast the Mongols for sure.
I mean, just look at their position. They've recently fought off the Seljuks to retake Anatolia - who fought in a similar style to the Mongols, but on a whole other level of power, and I doubt it was a great victory. They need time to regroup. So they'll do what China or other states did. Pay tribute, try not to piss them off, and use the security provided by the Mongols on their northern, and eastern borders to focus on other concerns. They could work on the navy, settlement, perhaps even working with the Mongols to serve a different end during the Mongol invasions of the Levant that followed Anatolia.
So yeah - Mongos vs Komnenids = The Komnenos bend the knee out of shrewd prudence. The Roman Empire outlasted the Huns, the Turks, the Avars, they'll outlast the Mongols for sure.
Byzantines in 1665?! What crazy ATL is this?
Sorry, my typo. 1265.
Good point. The main question is "which Mongols"? The Golden Horde (the OTL allies) or IlKhanate?
A Roman reconquest of all of Anatolia most likely butterflies the 1204 events anyway.
Typical Roman/Byzantine court intrigue brings about crisis #αΜϛ͵, ͵γωκδ durring which some noble woman offers to join Hulagu's harem. The Ilkhanate is now governed from Constantinople.