A surviving Byzantium?

Plus, many of these "ephemeral gains" lasted as long as three centuries, longer than the entire U.S. nation for a modern perspective. All honesty, the fact that the empire managed to last as long as it did, as strong as it did, against so many enemies, with so few allies makes them far more impressive. I honestly doubt that France in the same era would have fared nearly so well in the same situation.

Byzantium had a real problem with forming alliances, probably in part because of their massive national pride at being the Roman Empire. Worse still, they tended to keep their allies at arms length, and were less inclined to offer important international royal marriages before the Palaiologian period. Possibly their best alliance was with Hungary during Manuel's reign, but that fell through with Manuel's son getting killed by Andronikos I and then the 4th Crusade (which actually attacked the Hungarians on a much smaller scale if I remember correctly). That alliance was obviously usefull, since Manuel was able to secure more lands and tighter control, despite the fact that he really wasn't the sharpest (though not the dullest either) tool in the shed. If the Byzantines had, in a world without the 4th crusade, renewed their ties with
Hungary and the Crusader states, they could easily have gone another century without a major calamity, which would easily be enough time to finish regaining Anatolia and get back up to strength. If you kill the Normans in southern italy on schedual, and maybe form an alliance with the new southern Italian power, then the western front is secure, and in the east Georgia can be subsidized and propped up to help secure that frontier too. Not so bad, and certainly enough to keep chugging along til modern times on.
 
Byzantium had a real problem with forming alliances, probably in part because of their massive national pride at being the Roman Empire. Worse still, they tended to keep their allies at arms length, and were less inclined to offer important international royal marriages before the Palaiologian period. Possibly their best alliance was with Hungary during Manuel's reign, but that fell through with Manuel's son getting killed by Andronikos I and then the 4th Crusade (which actually attacked the Hungarians on a much smaller scale if I remember correctly). That alliance was obviously usefull, since Manuel was able to secure more lands and tighter control, despite the fact that he really wasn't the sharpest (though not the dullest either) tool in the shed. If the Byzantines had, in a world without the 4th crusade, renewed their ties with
Hungary and the Crusader states, they could easily have gone another century without a major calamity, which would easily be enough time to finish regaining Anatolia and get back up to strength. If you kill the Normans in southern italy on schedual, and maybe form an alliance with the new southern Italian power, then the western front is secure, and in the east Georgia can be subsidized and propped up to help secure that frontier too. Not so bad, and certainly enough to keep chugging along til modern times on.

I think you're underrating Byzantine diplomacy here. Byzantium played a game similar to Britain ("We have no fixed allies, only fixed interests.") and for the same reasons.

Sure, there's a massive amount of pride in being The Roman Empire, but that never got in the way of working with "barbarians" or nonChristians or Catholics.

And besides, part of the reason a purpleborn princess was such a prize is precisely because the Byzantines didn't marry them off to just anyone.
 
Of course, but I think that Byzantium tried playing Britan's game a bit too long. Realistically they needed one or two strong, long term, and probably intermarried allies to help them in either the Komnenid or Palaiologian restoration, otherwise they will run into the same external problems as OTL. In the early Palaiologian Era the Hungarians and Venetians (even with their obvious greivances) would probably be a good choice, although Genoa might be preferable to Venice for obvious reasons (although I still say that no realistic amount of good allies can save Andronikos II, at least not alone). For the Komnenids, probably Hungary like OTL, and a smattering of several Italian states, especially the Papacy if possible (all the more because the Schism wasn't so insurmountable before 1204).

The Allies and interests thing is in general a good way to be, but if you use it too rapidly then you exhaust your supply of replacement allies, and Byzantium, being the lone Orthodox state, the richest state, individually the strongest state, and having Constantinople was way easier and more tempting to attack. Britan was just too isolated, too hard to invade, and too little to gain for anyone other than France to take an active interest in, and in general any Protestant power loved them, giving Britan a sizable pool of countries that would almost always ally with them.

Anyways, to sum up my opinion of Byzantine diplomacy, they were good enough to make gains from other nations, but not good enough to look like your friend while robbing you blind(although I'm sure you have an example of just that somewhere too:D).
 
Of course, but I think that Byzantium tried playing Britan's game a bit too long. Realistically they needed one or two strong, long term, and probably intermarried allies to help them in either the Komnenid or Palaiologian restoration, otherwise they will run into the same external problems as OTL. In the early Palaiologian Era the Hungarians and Venetians (even with their obvious greivances) would probably be a good choice, although Genoa might be preferable to Venice for obvious reasons (although I still say that no realistic amount of good allies can save Andronikos II, at least not alone). For the Komnenids, probably Hungary like OTL, and a smattering of several Italian states, especially the Papacy if possible (all the more because the Schism wasn't so insurmountable before 1204).

Except that Hungary, the Italian states, and the Papacy have their own interests, and those interests are very much contrary to Constantinople's. Britain can form a coalition of powers to stop the Big Bad Hegemon, Byzantium has the Latins more threatening to it (And I'm not counting 1204 - look at what Hungary did after Manuel I's death, for example) than the Muslims.

Its not even about grievances, its about the fact that it would be like getting an alliance where Charles of Anjou agrees to help Conradin - and the Byzantines in this era are Conradin.

Which reminds me, the Byzantines played a good diplomatic game to try to deal with Charles as a threat - costly, but it worked.

And when we see the last Byzantine pleas for help, Hungary is stubbornly saying "conversion first, then we'll think about it" - not because of anything the Byzantines have done but Louis was even less fond of "schismatics" than Muslims, apparently.

The Allies and interests thing is in general a good way to be, but if you use it too rapidly then you exhaust your supply of replacement allies, and Byzantium, being the lone Orthodox state, the richest state, individually the strongest state, and having Constantinople was way easier and more tempting to attack. Britan was just too isolated, too hard to invade, and too little to gain for anyone other than France to take an active interest in, and in general any Protestant power loved them, giving Britan a sizable pool of countries that would almost always ally with them.

And the Byzantines didn't exactly exhaust their pool, what they had is countries like Hungary and Venice want to expand at Byzantine expense.

Lone Orthodox state? Georgia, the Russian principalities are not Orthodox? :confused:

And at least the southern principalities are in a position to (before being conquered, which rules them out in the 1300s) do something - read up on Roman the Great.

Anyways, to sum up my opinion of Byzantine diplomacy, they were good enough to make gains from other nations, but not good enough to look like your friend while robbing you blind(although I'm sure you have an example of just that somewhere too:D).

Time to check up on the Byzantine diplomacy towards the East in the late Macedonian period. :D That'd be the place I'd expect to find some examples.
 
And if Manuel I had no children?
He nominated Alexios/Bela as his heirs.
The empire culd be stressed by a civil war but may be he was protected by Hungary if Bela took the throne.
 
Except that Hungary, the Italian states, and the Papacy have their own interests, and those interests are very much contrary to Constantinople's. Britain can form a coalition of powers to stop the Big Bad Hegemon, Byzantium has the Latins more threatening to it (And I'm not counting 1204 - look at what Hungary did after Manuel I's death, for example) than the Muslims.

Its not even about grievances, its about the fact that it would be like getting an alliance where Charles of Anjou agrees to help Conradin - and the Byzantines in this era are Conradin.

Which reminds me, the Byzantines played a good diplomatic game to try to deal with Charles as a threat - costly, but it worked.

And when we see the last Byzantine pleas for help, Hungary is stubbornly saying "conversion first, then we'll think about it" - not because of anything the Byzantines have done but Louis was even less fond of "schismatics" than Muslims, apparently.

What I mean is that the Byzantines had difficulty making their alliances look like they had their allies' best interests at heart, which is something bound to happen if your alliances don't last longer than the original reason for creating them. There are many cases of a nation ignoring a perfect expansion opportunity at an allies expence simply because of the alliance, but not if the alliance was believed to be ephemeral, and Byzantium seemed to never keep allies long enough to dispell the feeling of it being a partnership of convenience.

Also, I think that the Italian states, being hardly united, would easy to play off one another, especially Venice and Genoa agains eachother, but I have to admit the Byzantines seemed to be doing that just fine until the Angeloi, so that might be Angelos specific.

Still, you are definitely right about Orthodoxy. It gave anyone who wanted one an excuse to attack or ignore the Empire as they pleased without backlash from anyone but Byzantium.


And the Byzantines didn't exactly exhaust their pool, what they had is countries like Hungary and Venice want to expand at Byzantine expense.

Lone Orthodox state? Georgia, the Russian principalities are not Orthodox? :confused:

And at least the southern principalities are in a position to (before being conquered, which rules them out in the 1300s) do something - read up on Roman the Great.

Firstly, lone Orthodox state in the sence that, at least from Manzikert onward, there was no Orthodox state within a reasonable enough distance to be a usefull military ally. Still, in the pre Mongol era Russians could have been a possability, but not an incredibly likely one IMO.That said my Russian history in the era between their conversion and the Mongol invasion is woefully inadequate, so i'll look into it.

And yes Hungary and Venice decided to expand at Byzantium's expense, but a strong alliance has been known to dispell ambitions of conquest at least somewhat, so perhaps long term allied Venetians, even if they do resent Constantinople, dont demand that the crusaders attack the city, and instead use less long term destruction in their competition with the empire (such as trade embargoes and blockades, there are many easier ways to ensure trade concessions than pulling a 1204).

Time to check up on the Byzantine diplomacy towards the East in the late Macedonian period. :D That'd be the place I'd expect to find some examples.

Will do, but I was mostly thinking about the empire in its crisis and recovery periods (primarily Komnenos and Laskaris/Palaiologos). The Macedonian era they really didn't need allies in the same way, as they were easily able to crush their greatest rivals of the time.
 
What I mean is that the Byzantines had difficulty making their alliances look like they had their allies' best interests at heart, which is something bound to happen if your alliances don't last longer than the original reason for creating them. There are many cases of a nation ignoring a perfect expansion opportunity at an allies expence simply because of the alliance, but not if the alliance was believed to be ephemeral, and Byzantium seemed to never keep allies long enough to dispell the feeling of it being a partnership of convenience.

Dispel to who?

Also, I think that the Italian states, being hardly united, would easy to play off one another, especially Venice and Genoa agains eachother, but I have to admit the Byzantines seemed to be doing that just fine until the Angeloi, so that might be Angelos specific.

Still, you are definitely right about Orthodoxy. It gave anyone who wanted one an excuse to attack or ignore the Empire as they pleased without backlash from anyone but Byzantium.

The Byzantines did try to play them against each other. The problem is that the Empire isn't something any of them want to support more than it serves their interests.

But that says more about the people who thought that Orthodoxy was a problem than the Byzantines.

Firstly, lone Orthodox state in the sence that, at least from Manzikert onward, there was no Orthodox state within a reasonable enough distance to be a usefull military ally. Still, in the pre Mongol era Russians could have been a possability, but not an incredibly likely one IMO.That said my Russian history in the era between their conversion and the Mongol invasion is woefully inadequate, so i'll look into it.

Again. Georgia. The southern Rus. Definitely close enough to be a useful ally.

And yes Hungary and Venice decided to expand at Byzantium's expense, but a strong alliance has been known to dispell ambitions of conquest at least somewhat, so perhaps long term allied Venetians, even if they do resent Constantinople, dont demand that the crusaders attack the city, and instead use less long term destruction in their competition with the empire (such as trade embargoes and blockades, there are many easier ways to ensure trade concessions than pulling a 1204).

The problem is that those ambitions mean that neither wants a strong alliance.

I don't think 1204 was at all inevitable, but it was a direct consequence of the fact Venice is not interested in Constantinople's well being - not something the Byzantines can change just by something as vague as "better diplomacy"..

Will do, but I was mostly thinking about the empire in its crisis and recovery periods (primarily Komnenos and Laskaris/Palaiologos). The Macedonian era they really didn't need allies in the same way, as they were easily able to crush their greatest rivals of the time.

True.
 
Top