AHC: Better 13th Century for the Byzantines

[John Fredrick Parker]

OTL, the century started with the Fourth Crusade, leading to an interregnum that lasted until 1261; by then... well, the empire was overrun by Ottomans in the 14th Century, and they weren't in the best position to do anything about it, much less reemerge as the power they were during the Komnenian heyday.

So my question -- what can plausibly happen differently, after 1195, for the 13th Century to be considerably less bad for the ERE?

 

[Avrorrange]

Alexios III dies after falling off the stairs and the throne gets inherited by his son-in-law Theodore Laskaris.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Alexios III dies after falling off the stairs and the throne gets inherited by his son-in-law Theodore Laskaris.

Good answer. But wasn't his other son in law, Alexios, the heir at this time? Plus Issac II is still out there, should Venice decide to reinstall him. I'm guessing you think either of Alexios III's son in laws would be better suited to fight off such attempts?

 

[Avrorrange]

Good answer. But wasn't his other son in law, Alexios, the heir at this time? Plus Issac II is still out there, should Venice decide to reinstall him. I'm guessing you think either of Alexios III's son in laws would be better suited to fight off such attempts?

You are right,so this guy can fall off the stairs along with the other Alexios too. On a particular stormy night,when the Basileus Alexios was having a talk with his son in law,another Alexios, along the stairs,the elder Alexios had a misstep and the two Alexios come tumbling down the stairs.By the time the two were found,they were pronounced dead.

I think if Theodore's in charge,Venetian attempts to attack Constantinople would have been screwed.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Alternatively, Alexios and Theodore have a struggle for the throne following their father-in-law's death, which Theodore wins.

I think if Theodore's in charge, Venetian attempts to attack Constantinople would have been screwed.

What woukd our more competent Emperor be doing differently?

 

[Avrorrange]

Alternatively, Alexios and Theodore have a struggle for the throne following their father-in-law's death, which Theodore wins.

What woukd our more competent Emperor be doing differently?

Presumably a campaign to subjugate the Bulgarians or attack the Turks.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Presumably a campaign to subjugate the Bulgarians or attack the Turks.

So what Issac was planning on doing when his brother (and Theodore's father in law) overthrew him. How does this help him against the Venetians?

 

[Avrorrange]

So what Issac was planning on doing when his brother (and Theodore's father in law) overthrew him. How does this help him against the Venetians?

The Venetians aren't a major problem if not for the coalescence of different factors.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

The Venetians aren't a major problem if not for the coalescence of different factors.

That's what I'm hoping to get a hold of here; what are these key factors? And how does a campaign against the Bulgarians circa 1200-01 (for example) change them? Remember, we're going with a circa 1199 PoD here, meaning a lot of the weaknesses the ERE had been piling up leading to the Fourth Crusade (selling off the navy, etc) have already happened.

Is the idea here that leading troops to secure the border with Bulgaria frees up more troops from semi-autonomous border commanders, who can now help with the defense of the capital? Something else I'm missing?

 

[Avrorrange]

That's what I'm hoping to get a hold of here; what are these key factors? And how does a campaign against the Bulgarians circa 1200-01 (for example) change them? Remember, we're going with a circa 1199 PoD here, meaning a lot of the weaknesses the ERE had been piling up leading to the Fourth Crusade (selling off the navy, etc) have already happened.

Is the idea here that leading troops to secure the border with Bulgaria frees up more troops from semi-autonomous border commanders, who can now help with the defense of the capital? Something else I'm missing?

I don't think a campaign so soon after the POD of 1199 is appropriate.To my knowledge,the army was a complete mess due to the Angeloi's misrule.The army would need to be re-hauled.The Crusaders won't be hard to defeat with competent leadership.IOTL,even with poor state of the army,it took ridiculously bad leadership to lose Constantinople.

Afterwards,a navy definitely have to be reconstituted considering most of the ERE's vital economic regions are exposed to Latin naval assault.It's ridiculous to outsource your navy permanently to a foreign nation with economic interests in your country.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

The Crusaders won't be hard to defeat with competent leadership. IOTL, even with poor state of the army, it took ridiculously bad leadership to lose Constantinople.

Ah, this is what I hadn't known; I'll need to read up on it. How would you describe it?

Afterwards,a navy definitely have to be reconstituted considering most of the ERE's vital economic regions are exposed to Latin naval assault.It's ridiculous to outsource your navy permanently to a foreign nation with economic interests in your country.

Very important point that bears remembering.

 

[Avrorrange]

Ah, this is what I hadn't known; I'll need to read up on it. How would you describe it?

Very important point that bears remembering.

At one point during the siege of Constantinople,there was a battle where the Romans under the direct leadership of Alexios III heavily outnumbered the Latins,but instead of attacking,Alexios III deserted the army.He subsequently deserted the city altogether.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

OK, so we've got the start of our rough TL here -- sometime after the marriage of Theodore Laskaris to the daughter of Alexios III in 1199 (so 1200-02), the Emperor trips and falls down the stairs, cracking his skull and dying. After a brief power struggle, the husband of the late emperor's second daughter emerges victorious, and is (presumably) crowned Theodore I.

The Fourth Crusade progresses as OTL, and the army of Venetiains and Crusaders arrives at Constantinople in 1203 looking to put Issac II back on the throne. The difference is TTL, the defending emperor does not flee the city; as a result, the nobles of the city don't open the gates or agree to put Issac back on the throne, and the city continues to defend itself. The Varangian Guard does its thing, and the main crusader army is held at bay, even if some Venetians manage to take a tower or two and/or get over the walls.

How TTL's Fourth Crusade comes to an end exactly I'm not sure of, but it does seem that the Byzantines are capable of keeping them out of their city (if for the most part). I imagine that relations with much of the Catholic West (the pope, Venice, the HRE, etc) will be very chilling following this confrontation, which will not make things easier for our Theodore; adding to that the border issues with the Turks and the Bulgarians and rebuilding the navy, the ERE has some serious challenges ahead.

But on the plus side, they're in a much better position to meet them.

 

[Baron Steakpuncher]

How TTL's Fourth Crusade comes to an end exactly I'm not sure of, but it does seem that the Byzantines are capable of keeping them out of their city (if for the most part). I imagine that relations with much of the Catholic West (the pope, Venice, the HRE, etc) will be very chilling following this confrontation, which will not make things easier for our Theodore; adding to that the border issues with the Turks and the Bulgarians and rebuilding the navy, the ERE has some serious challenges ahead.

But on the plus side, they're in a much better position to meet them.

We do have to remember that the entire fourth crusade was excommunicated by mr pope man, This would mollify the damage somewhat, also the empire would likely lose some of its greek provinces to marauding crusaders. But the real question, is what a unified ERE would mean for the turkish beyliks. As a fallout effect the armenians of ciciliia and anatolian greeks might become an ethnic majority in this timeline due to lack of turkish migratory pressure.

 

[Battleship_Ise]

OTL, the century started with the Fourth Crusade, leading to an interregnum that lasted until 1261; by then... well, the empire was overrun by Ottomans in the 14th Century, and they weren't in the best position to do anything about it, much less reemerge as the power they were during the Komnenian heyday.

So my question -- what can plausibly happen differently, after 1195, for the 13th Century to be considerably less bad for the ERE?

Michael VIII doesn't usurp the throne in 1258. The Anatolians greek populations were in the vast majority favorable to the Laskaris dynasty, so if she stay in place the Turks would have been faced more resistance in Asia minor during the end of the century

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I expect our Theodore, who's likely to reign for about 20 year or so (so to circa 1220) will be kept busy during his reign just pulling the empire back from the brink (again, rebuilding the navy, etc) so that they're on something of a stronger footing to begin reasserting themselves as a major power during the reign of his successor.

But the real question, is what a unified ERE would mean for the turkish beyliks. As a fallout effect the armenians of ciciliia and anatolian greeks might become an ethnic majority in this timeline due to lack of turkish migratory pressure.

I had been thinking about the Sejuks as well; the Byzantines may well be in a position to actually expand their borders around 1236, when the Mongols (IIRC) started really messing about in the Caucuses and Eastern Anatolia. Might be a good opportunity to finally (finally!) retake inner Anatolia. If they can do this, and if it can be secured, the ERE may well be in a position to maintain their borders (more or less) for centuries to come...

also the empire would likely lose some of its greek provinces to marauding crusaders.

Hm, maybe; I imagine that would depend on how many crusaders are left after failing to take Constantinople to maraud about effectively.

We do have to remember that the entire fourth crusade was excommunicated by mr pope man; this would mollify the damage somewhat...

That is true, I had forgotten; wasn't it the whole Republic of Venice that got excommunicated after Zadar? Anyway, things will still be tense.

I had actually started thinking the Byzantines might try warming relations with the Sultanate in Egypt to better stand against their Catholic and Crusader neighbors, but now I'm less sure.

Michael VIII doesn't usurp the throne in 1258. The Anatolians greek populations were in the vast majority favorable to the Laskaris dynasty, so if she stay in place the Turks would have been faced more resistance in Asia minor during the end of the century

While that is interesting -- and could arguably make for a less disastrous 14th Century, possibly even preventing the empire collapsing when it did -- I should note that the OP is technically "improve the 13th Century for the ERE". Even if the Byzantines aren't pushovers for the Ottomans, they're still going to have a near impossible time reasserting themselves as a great power after the damage of the interregnum.

 

[Battleship_Ise]

While that is interesting -- and could arguably make for a less disastrous 14th Century, possibly even preventing the empire collapsing when it did -- I should note that the OP is technically "improve the 13th Century for the ERE". Even if the Byzantines aren't pushovers for the Ottomans, they're still going to have a near impossible time reasserting themselves as a great power after the damage of the interregnum.

Technically Michael VIII after 1258 would have been able to reconquer Anatolia (don't forget that if the ERE was able to survive during the 8/9/10th centuries when Avars/Arabs/Slavs/Bulgarians invaded his lands it was because Anatolia remain greek). The Sultanate of Roum was politically disintegrated and all his remaining forces were occupied by the Ilkhanate. But he decided to stay passive. He didn't even pursue the politics of the Laskaris consisting in making guard the oriental border by armed colons (too expensive). IMO if he had simply done this the fate of the ERE would have been more different that OTL. The Ottomans wouldn't have been able to win in power until become a mortal threat like OTL ,simply because of the resistance of the border colons.

 

[Battleship_Ise]

I have tried to make a TL in which the Laskaris dynasty stay in place and overwhelm the ottomans in 1263, when Osman is still young. The perspectives aren't bad but i have difficulties to make the transition between the 13th and the 14th century (especially because of the ascent of the serbians OTL and the consequences of the black death)

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Technically Michael VIII after 1258 would have been able to reconquer Anatolia. The Sultanate of Roum was politically disintegrated and all his remaining forces were occupied by the Ilkhanate. But he decided to stay passive. He didn't even pursue the politics of the Laskaris consisting in making guard the oriental border by armed colons (too expensive). IMO if he had simply done this the fate of the ERE would are been more different that OTL. The Ottomans wouldn't have been able to win in power until become a mortal threat like OTL ,simply because of the resistance of the border colons.

What condition was the ERE in at this time, economically, militarily, what have you? Because, if I had to guess, I would think that after over half a century of civil wars, the Treasury wouldn't be in the best position for an expedition like this; had the recently victorious Empire of Nicea even managed to rebuild the Navy? And how vulnerable were they in the west?

 

[Battleship_Ise]

What condition was the ERE in at this time, economically, militarily, what have you? Because, if I had to guess, I would think that after over half a century of civil wars, the Treasury wouldn't be in the best position for an expedition like this; had the recently victorious Empire of Nicea even managed to rebuild the Navy? And how vulnerable were they in the west?

When John III Batatzes died in 1254 Nicaean empire was the richest nation of the region. His marine was enough strong to be a serious threat for the Latin Empire, which had the support of the venetian marine. But on the last point you're right the west is a constant threat due to the ambitions of Charles I of Anjou after 1266 and his ascent to the throne of Sicily. But if you see the history of the ERE you can see that if the empire hold Constantinopolis and Anatolia he can lost ALL the continental greece, it isn't a problem (look at the situation in 717 when Leo III became basileus). Anatolia is richer than greece, event during the 13th century.