Andronicus II & Asia Minor.

In the late 1290s, he recruited the Byzantine general Alexios Philanthropenos to fight the Turks in western Asia Minor. The expedition was a complete success and the Turkish emirs were completely defeated. However, Alexios soon rebelled and had himself declared emperor. He was defeated and blinded, and not long afterwards, the Turks re-entered and began to renew their conquests. WI: Alexios had remained loyal to Andronicus and continued to fight the Turks? Can Asia Minor have been saved?
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Alexios was probably the last good general that the Roman Empire (Although calling that pitiful state an Empire is sort of laughable). But he can't save the Empire.

Although a good portion of the Ionian coast and Bithynia are still in Roman hands, they have been weakened by war. Also, Alexios's campaign wasn't against the Ottomans (Who weren't, mistakenly, considered a serious threat. Instead, his campaign was against the Beydom of Menteshe, who was a naval threat to Roman power.

The best chance for the Empire, although probably little better, is for Alexios to instead be successful in seizing the throne. The problem with Andronicus is that he was an extremely weak and incompetant ruler who neglected the defenses of Asia. But he did so to strengthen his hold on Europe, because the Bulgarians and the Serbs were seen as a greater threat.

It is likely that Osman still takes Bithynia, and solidifies his control of some of the more productive areas of Asia Minor. The Romans just simply had too many enemies, and not enough resources. Osman is probably one of the greatest generals of the Medieval Era as well.
 
I must agree with Nikephoros; though for the post 1261 period, I prefer to use the term Greek rather than Roman; the Byzantines did indeed refer to themselves as Romans, but by this time, the "Empire" was merely the most significant of a collection of squabbling Greek, Latin, Slavic, and Turkish states of the region.

Regarding Asia Minor, I must also agree that it is probably too late here; but this need not be so. If the Greeks can retain their hold on what they have, and Osman is unluckier due to butterflies, then maybe, just maybe, Constantinople can play divide and rule, and restore Greece itself and the Aegean piecemeal. You probably won't see a full scale Imperial recovery (unless we really start furiously Byzantino-wanking), but if the Aegean can be consolidated, then the Empire could concievably survive as a nation state, rather than a Great Power. Byzantine Hapsburgs maybe? :p
 

Keenir

Banned
It is likely that Osman still takes Bithynia, and solidifies his control of some of the more productive areas of Asia Minor. The Romans just simply had too many enemies, and not enough resources. Osman is probably one of the greatest generals of the Medieval Era as well.

In that case, why not coopt Osman? (whether Alexios or Andronicus rules)

maybe offer a Byzantine princess or noblewoman.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
In that case, why not coopt Osman? (whether Alexios or Andronicus rules)

maybe offer a Byzantine princess or noblewoman.

Interesting thought. It's possible, but I don't see it happening. Osman isn't a general without a territory, and he has one. Why go for a little bit if you can have a lot?

In a sense, it's probably a good idea to think of the Ottomans rise almost as if the Ottomans were usurpers to the throne. Instead of thinking of them as merely another beylik, albeit an extremely lucky one, perhaps it is better to think of them as another dynasty trying to take control.

IIRC, early in the reign of Orhan, there was such a marriage, and it probably served to legitimize Ottoman goals.
 
Top