AHC: anothet hellenic empire instead of byzantium

Here is an alternate history challenge create a situation where Rhomania falls before the 4th crusade, and another Hellenic empire takes its place. The only rule is the new empire cannot claim the title of roman empire.
 
Well, thing is, the magnitude and the prestige that the word 'Roman' had back then was too great for anyone to ignore. It is no co-incidence that in the aftermath of the 4th crusade, any monarch who was powerful enough and at least somewhat close to Constantinople claimed the title of the Roman Emperor. (Latin Empire, Empire of Nicaea, Epirus, even Bulgaria and later the Serbs and the Ottomans as well).

In the Empire of Nicaea, a sense that apart of being Roman, they had also Hellenic heritage started to emerge, especially in the intelligentsia and the nobility, and that continued after 1261 right until 1453. But you cannot butterfly away the Romannes thing that existed back then - and you can't get the exact same nationalism that appeared centuries later.
 
If is is alright for the empire to fall during the 4th crusade, you may get away with making the Despotate of Epirus fit the bill. They had most of Greece at one point, and while they had loose claim to being the Roman Empire, it was often disregarded. Prevent them from regaining Constantinople for a couple hundred years and they'll probably give up the claim. The challenge then becomes making Epirus into a power strong enough to warrant being called an empire on its own merits rather than reprising Byzantium's title, unless an empire in name only will suffice, in which case OTL Trebizond is perfect.

Making Epirus that powerful without giving them Constantinople too early will likely mean that they need to expand into Italy, Croatia, or Anatolia. Of the three, Italy is the one I find most interesting, and in 1200 the Kingdom of Naples was having a hard time staying affloat. Butterfly Charles of Anjou and don't give Naples any other strong rulers and expansion into southern Italy and Sicily becomes possible. Croatia would require a weakened Hungary and Venice, since neither of them wants an outside power messing up their control over parts of it. Anatolia will require the lack of an Ottoman analogue or successful Byzantine successor state.

Also, the reverse could work, namely having the Empire of Nicaea fail to reclaim Constantinople (possibly by giving it to Bulgaria) and then having them reunify Anatolia, reimposing Greek culture in the process. United Anatolia is already a sizeable empire, so in retrospect they are even easier to make fit the bill. Without European threats and ambitions they may even be able to push further east and south.
 
Making Epirus that powerful without giving them Constantinople too early will likely mean that they need to expand into Italy, Croatia, or Anatolia. Of the three, Italy is the one I find most interesting, and in 1200 the Kingdom of Naples was having a hard time staying affloat. Butterfly Charles of Anjou and don't give Naples any other strong rulers . . .

Don't forget who rules (well, he's a minor as of 1200) the Kingdom of Sicily (no Kingdom of Naples yet).
 
Don't forget who rules (well, he's a minor as of 1200) the Kingdom of Sicily (no Kingdom of Naples yet).

Oops:eek: Darn HRE. If OTL's schedual holds, or the Pope wants to make a power play against the emperor (the Epirotes were often Catholic sympathetic when it suited them), then it might still work, but definitely more difficult.
 
Oops:eek: Darn HRE. If OTL's schedual holds, or the Pope wants to make a power play against the emperor (the Epirotes were often Catholic sympathetic when it suited them), then it might still work, but definitely more difficult.

Yeah. I think you raised something worth thinking about, though. Having the Papacy favor Epirus as a replacement for Manfred (or whoever) by the 1260s would be interesting.
 
Top