Alternate Anatolias

Byzantine fanatic, could you expand on what you think would happen with a more powerful, longer surviving empire of Nicaea? I'd love to hear about that timeline!

Well, the key would be to ensure that they stay focused on their Anatolian core. In our timeline, they became increasingly drawn into Europe and this over-stretched their resources.

The key turning point is the period 1224 to 1230. In 1224, the rival Byzantine kingdom of Epirus captured Thessalonica. This city was second only to Constantinople. After the victory, it seemed Epirus was the most powerful successor to Byzantium. But in 1230, the forces of Epirus (now called "the empire of Thessalonica") suffered a disastrous defeat at the hands of the Bulgarians at the battle of Kilokotnitsa.

This event caused the Empire of Thessalonica to disintegrate, and so the Empire of Nicaea crossed into Europe around 1235 and captured some territory. This was the beginning of a train of events that would eventually lead to ruin. But it was not clear at the time. By 1248, the empire of Nicaea had captured the whole area (Thessalonica, Macedonia and Thrace).

In 1242, the Mongols defeated the Seljuks in Anatolia. But instead of taking advantage to recapture lost lands, Nicaea spent the years up to 1261 fighting Epirus and the Latins in the West. This proved to be a historic mistake.

After 1261, the relentless focus on wars in the West left Anatolia stripped of defenders, taxed heavily, and open to Turkish ghazis fleeing the Mongols. The usurpation of the throne by Michael VIII, and the blinding of the true Laskarid emperor, left many in Anatolia deeply unhappy. Michael's union with the Catholic church meant the prisons were soon full of Orthodox clergy and their supporters. The people felt their emperor had turned his back on god. Divisions within the church sapped unity from within, while Michael's expensive wars and diplomacy bankrupted the empire. Rebuilding Constantinople further stretched resources, while Anatolia was neglected.

Michael's policy did not work in the end as the West still attacked Byzantium relentlessly despite the unpopular submission to Rome. It simply further weakened Byzantium from within and turned the people against the state.

After 1282, Andronikos II came to the throne. He attempted to repair the damage by making drastic cuts to the military, abolishing the army and the navy, cutting taxes and attempting to live within the empire's means. But this policy proved to be a disaster, as it left the empire utterly powerless and defenceless as the Turks conquered Anatolia and the Italian states fought wars and raided the Aegean at will, sacking and burning Byzantine lands and looting at will.

By 1338, Byzantine Anatolio no longer existed. In its place, Turkish beyliks ruled the territory, and many former Byzantine subjects had already converted to Islam. They could see which way the wind was blowing, and they made the understandable choice that it is better to be on the winning side.

In my opinion, a more successful empire of Nicaea would require a different outcome at the battle of Klokonitsa in 1230. Say the empire of Thessalonica wins a resounding victory over the Bulgarians instead of being defeated. They capture Constantinople shortly after.

In this situation, there is no opportunity in Europe for Nicaea to expand. If a peace can be maintained between the two successor states, then when the Mongols defeat the Seljuks in 1242, Nicaea will march east instead of west. They desperately need to do this. If they can recover and fortify areas like Eskisehir, Philadelphia, Attaleia, and maybe Sinope, they can begin to push into central Anatolia. This would give them the chance to build a real power base.

A general like Alexios Philanthropenos, who gained local popularity and support from Greeks and Turks alike, with Turks even joining his army alongside Greeks, would be ideal. (Historically he lived around 1295 and was blinded for his efforts). A leader like that could unite the locals and the Turks under one banner, potentially changing the course of history.

Best case scenario, he is even able to capture Konya (the Seljuks capital), perhaps on the basis that Nicaean rule is seen as preferable to being conquered by the Mongols. At the result, we now end up with a large and powerful kingdom based at Nicaea, which rules most of Anatolia. Such a state, if it can hold together, would then raise the intriguing possibility of an Anatolian kingdom eventually conquering Constantinople. And when it does, it would be a Greeko-Turkic Anatolian Christian state called Nicaea. That would put Byzantine civilisation back on the map, potentially lasting down to the present day.
 
So Constantine doesn’t accept Christianity, then, because of never seeing the cross in the sky at Milvian Bridge. Even without state sponsorship Christianity will still expand somewhat in a persisting Roman Empire (for the next half century ITTL). At least one of the Roman successor states could end up Christian.
Yes, i would also expect for some Romano-Christian states to emerge out of the collapse of the empire. One centered around Carthage is a possibility.
 
Yes, i would also expect for some Romano-Christian states to emerge out of the collapse of the empire. One centered around Carthage is a possibility.

Could be interesting—maybe the Berbers conquer Carthage and then convert?

The other big early center of Christianity IIRC was (modern-day) Greece, but that might end up falling under the Armenian ERE.
 
Wow Byzantine fanatic that's a super interesting and thorough! The culture of such an empire would be very fascinating- greco-turkish culture influencing each other possibly more than in OTL but in the opposite direction. Really cool!
 
This map was nice on Twitter today

DeixSN_UQAEv37D.jpg


Anatolia is most interesting here
 
Best case scenario, he is even able to capture Konya (the Seljuks capital), perhaps on the basis that Nicaean rule is seen as preferable to being conquered by the Mongols. At the result, we now end up with a large and powerful kingdom based at Nicaea, which rules most of Anatolia. Such a state, if it can hold together, would then raise the intriguing possibility of an Anatolian kingdom eventually conquering Constantinople. And when it does, it would be a Greeko-Turkic Anatolian Christian state called Nicaea. That would put Byzantine civilisation back on the map, potentially lasting down to the present day.

Very interesting. How do Trebizond and Armenia factor into this scenario?
 
Very interesting. How do Trebizond and Armenia factor into this scenario?

I see Trebizond becoming a vassal, as happened OTL when John II of Trebizond formally divested himself of his imperial robes and crown and accepted the lesser title of commander of the entire east, Iberia and Perateia, in 1272, in exchange for a marriage alliance with Constantinople.

As for Armenia, I think they will be an enemy. The Komnenoi fought the Cilician Armenians in the 12th century for control of Adana, Tarsus and other cities and I see that conflict resuming. Most likely they remain independent, unless Nicaea achieves a full blown conquest of Anatolia. But that would be unlikely during the 13th century, even in the most optimistic scenario.
 
How about latin anatolia?
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...y-could-the-imperium-romaniae-succeed.439371/
Aside from the latin empire and bulgaria getting into a personal union, the PODs I suggested in the linked thread could lead to the conquest of nicaea, which would greatly strengthen the empire (instead of leading to total disaster like invading europe did for nicaea).

It'd have to be early, though, and could be done with a win at adrianople (or avoiding that debacle altogether), allowing henry to beat nicaea much harder at the rhyndacus, and then follow up with the conquest of ionia. That would leave the komnenos and doukids, but trebizond would be more worried with rum and getting out from under georgia's thumb, while epirus could probably be kept occupied by the achaians alone.
 
Well, the key would be to ensure that they stay focused on their Anatolian core. In our timeline, they became increasingly drawn into Europe and this over-stretched their resources.

The key turning point is the period 1224 to 1230. In 1224, the rival Byzantine kingdom of Epirus captured Thessalonica. This city was second only to Constantinople. After the victory, it seemed Epirus was the most powerful successor to Byzantium. But in 1230, the forces of Epirus (now called "the empire of Thessalonica") suffered a disastrous defeat at the hands of the Bulgarians at the battle of Kilokotnitsa.

This event caused the Empire of Thessalonica to disintegrate, and so the Empire of Nicaea crossed into Europe around 1235 and captured some territory. This was the beginning of a train of events that would eventually lead to ruin. But it was not clear at the time. By 1248, the empire of Nicaea had captured the whole area (Thessalonica, Macedonia and Thrace).

In 1242, the Mongols defeated the Seljuks in Anatolia. But instead of taking advantage to recapture lost lands, Nicaea spent the years up to 1261 fighting Epirus and the Latins in the West. This proved to be a historic mistake.

There were pretty sound strategic reasons for John III to leave the Seljuks alone, namely that they got vassalized by the Mongols. It had been enough of a close call that Nicaea did an about turn fast enough for the Mongols to leave it alone. Meddling with the Mongols brand new vassal doesn't sound such a good idea under the cirumstances. Arguably the problem was more in Theodore II dying early and then Michael VIII taking over not just due to his focus west but also due to his conflict with the recnstituted Anatolian troops and peasantry that were Lascarid loyalists, hence the two revolts he had to put down and what effectively constituted a delibetate policy to weaken them. That he then got followed by someone as incompetent as Andronicus II and the latter kept the throne for half a century...
 
For something entirely different... how likely is it for the Eastern Roman Empire to grant some Germanic tribe (be they Goths, Gepids, or someone else entirely) land in the interior of Anatolia and for them to consolidate there, thus creating a German Anatolia?
Something similar to this actually happened OTL. When the Gallic chieftain Brennus launched an invasion of the Balkans in the third century BC, much of the tribal leftovers of his army migrated to central Anatolia, namely the Gallic tribes Trocmi, Tectosages, and Tolistobogii. The region they occupied was known as Galatia. After Roman conquest, they were eventually Hellenized, and were absorbed into the local population. If the Galatians had been more successful, we could've had Gallic Anatolia. A weird thought.
 
Galatian/Celtic Anatolia would be a lot of fun. How the Celtize a bunch of supposedly civilized Greeks would be a cool story in itself.
 
Top