AHC Prevent the rise of feudalism in the ERE

so here is the challenge with a POD after the ascenstion of COnstantine Porphrgynetos make it possible for the small landholders and soldier farmers of the byzantine empire not lose their land to the landed aristocracy.

If such a thing is able to happen how would it affect the Byzantine dynamics circa the 11th-13th century and can this prevention of a rise in a powerful landholding byzantine class ensure a survival of the byzantine state and continued surplus of funds for war and other expenses. Since the backbone of byzantium financially, militarily, and economically lay with the small landholders and soldiers for the most part.
 
Right now, I'm thinking of three options:

1. If the revolts of Bardas Skleros and Bardas Phokas are defeated more quickly, Basil II might be more lenient towards the nobility while still supporting the landowners and taxing the church. I may be wrong, but I think Basil's policies towards the nobility (or their reversal by his successors) contributed to the decline.

2. Constantine VIII, Zoe and Theodora die earlier and Basil nominates a new successor, say:

* Michael the Paphlagonian (OTL Michael IV) or his brother John.
* Isaac Komnenos (he was around 18 at the time of Basil's death).

3. A plague sweeps through and hits the nobility harder, making Basil's (or maybe Andronikos I's) job a bit easier.
 

Deleted member 67076

Don't let Manzikert happen and subsequently have the Komnenoi come into power. Even that I wouldn't really call it feudalism.
 
Don't let Manzikert happen and subsequently have the Komnenoi come into power. Even that I wouldn't really call it feudalism.

Yeah, its more like pseudo feudalism. ironically though the komnenoi accelerated the process of more landed aristocrats by Manuel's reign.

its like a snowball effect, that started after the death of romanos made worse by constantine-zoe and then under nikephoros phokas it accelerated even more only to be somewhat stopped by tzismikes but by that point the snowball balooned and then basil managed to temporarily halt the snowball but the previous momentum it gaine pushed through anyway and by the time of manuel komnenos the landed aristocracy had all but wiped out the small landholders who formed the main tax base for the empire.

Thus I guess it can be argued that it was the destruction of the age old byzantkne system that worked for the empire till the middle ages that could be pinned as the main ccause of the eventual fall of the empire. inept rulers and foreign invasions just accelerated the processs. as long as Byzantium could keep its tax base and fund its soldiers armies Anatolia would remain a tough nut to crack even by the most powerful enemies. Since Anatolia formed the military backbone of the empire even if the empire is lead by a weak ruler and suffers terrible defeats the byzantines will for the most part recover. This was most aplth demonstrated by the succesfull byzantine revivals following the persian and arabic invasions. Theres a reason powerful empires like the abbasids couldnt break through the empire, because the empire could always draw upon money and manpower. If however the landed aristocracy gained too much power than the empire will continue to decline in the long run, even if it makes gains or does ridiculously well in the short term.




So perhaps byzantine caesar option 1 seem the best.
But how then would such a change affect europe and the middle east by say the 1400s?
 
Last edited:
Don't let Manzikert happen and subsequently have the Komnenoi come into power. Even that I wouldn't really call it feudalism.

The Komnenoi were "feudal" aristocrats of the highest order: it was under them that the government of the Empire came to be totally dominated by the Anatolian magnates that Basil II had sought to oppose.

Anyway, I'm not sure the questioner really understands the question that's being posed here. There was never some golden halcyon age of peasant soldier farmers making up the bedrock of Byzantine armies: that's a fantasy that owes more to contemporary nineteenth and early twentieth century political ideology as expressed by historians, particularly Russian ones. The reality is that from as early as Constantine V, and certainly by the tenth century, the armies were thoroughly professional forces, manned by career soldiers recruited from both inside and outside imperial territory.

Linked to this, the Byzantine aristocracy is quite likely always going to rise if conditions in the ninth and tenth century remain the same: that is, increasing economic prosperity and territorial expansion in the East. I'm of the opinion that Byzantium is an intrinsically powerful enough state that expansion here will happen the moment solidified Islamic power in the area begins to falter. So, to stop the rise of the nobles you need to keep Byzantium as a dramatically poorer and weaker state than it was IOTL, something more like its eighth century nadir.

Now, to do this, it presupposes a much stronger Islamic Caliphate, that continually holds at the very least Iraq, Syria and Egypt, and defends itself capably against threats from Turks and Christians. The existence of this very large and powerful Islamic state will obviously be huge on Europe as a whole. It certainly means no Crusades, and probably dramatically curtails the rise of the Italian merchant states. The Papacy could well be much less powerful, so churches will become more "national". I'd expect continued Islamic expansion into areas like Sicily and Sardinia, as well as deep into Africa.
 
Top