Bulgarians conquer the Latin Empire/Greece?
- Thread starter Zioneer
- Start date
How is it going to do that, though?
That is, who is it going to influence?
The West isn't exactly going to rally behind a newly-Christianized pagan's usurpation any more than an illiterate peasant's (Basil's).
Why not? The allegiance of the Bulgarians ecclesiastically is up for grabs, and holding Constantinople gives them a decent claim to what goes on with the see there. As for who the Pope influences, try tthe Franks and other Christianized peoples to that point.
The allegiance of the Bulgarians to anything but Constantinople is going to seriously weaken Boris's position.
And the Pope messing with things...the ERE already has a problem with the fact the Pope sees himself as second only to Jesus.
As for the Franks and other Christianized peoples:And how many of them are going to care?
I mean, seriously, is Lewis the German going to raise an army (can he even raise an army beyond what he's already caught up in) to support Boris?
Bulgaria can be aligned toward Constantinople, but still move it in a direction more amenable to Rome, and the real factor here could play in if the Arabs decide to recognize Boris as Emperor of the Romans.
Doing so will kill Boris's chances of being accepted.
And the Arabs recognizing Boris as Emperor of the Romans...won't mean very much.
The man who overthrows him to reestablish orthodox, Roman rule will be recognized, too.
The ERE's preference for capable usurpers (Basil I) over incompetent "legitimate" rulers (Michael III) is a serious problem for a half-barbarian freshly converted pagan.
Or, if he runs with it instead of against it, a great opportunity.
In this scenario, how does Boris get Constantinople anyway? Since the city simply cannot be taken by storm by the Bulgars, he's going to need some sort of internal support- and that ain't gonna happen if he's still proudly calling himself a Bulgar...
This is at a point in which "Orthodox, Roman rule" is not wholly incompatible with cordial relations to and from the Bishop of Rome.
More or less, yes. In 1204, the city fell because it was unexpectedly attacked from the seaward side after a period of long neglect of the navy. In 1453, it fell because of heavy gunpowder bombardment, and, again, attack from the seaward side. Neither Boris, nor Simeon, nor any other Bulgar leader, has either canons, a fleet, or supporters inside the City.....Because only Turks and Franks can conquer the city
All of the Byzantine usurpers who successfully took the city had one, yes. Though I'm not too sure where this snide sarcasm is getting us.
Its not so much that the Bulgars per se cannot take the city, as that the Bulgars were never in a position of any of the successful conquerors and usurpers because of their lack of (any of) a fleet, cannons, or support within the city.
No one else, no matter how capable and strong, managed to take Constantinople. Only those with one of those did. This is kind of telling on how strong the city's defenses are.
And while orthodox (small O is being used intentionally - there's a distinction even pre-1054, but its not as glaring), Roman rule is not completely incompatible with friendliness towards the Patriarch of Rome, the divisions are starting - one is the issue of the seniority of Constantinople (the patriarchate of, that is), and the other is the damnable filioque clause that should never have been inserted.
No one else, no matter how capable and strong, managed to take Constantinople. Only those with one of those did. This is kind of telling on how strong the city's defenses are.
And while orthodox (small O is being used intentionally - there's a distinction even pre-1054, but its not as glaring), Roman rule is not completely incompatible with friendliness towards the Patriarch of Rome, the divisions are starting - one is the issue of the seniority of Constantinople (the patriarchate of, that is), and the other is the damnable filioque clause that should never have been inserted.
That makes quite a bit of sense, actually. But, this means that even during the Latin Empire period during the Crusades Bulgaria can't take the city?
I apologize. I was starting to think that getting advice from Byzantophiles on ways to radically transform or divide the Empire is like asking Anglophiles on advice pertaining to diminishing British clout in the world. I apologize for the tone. Nonetheless, I find it odd that the Turks would have had support from within the City in 1453.
I didn't say they did- I meant that people have got in to Constantinople and performed a coup when they had support inside the city, people to let them in and so on. The coup of John Tzimiskes is a good example of this happening, as is that of Isaac I Komnenos.
I've written a TL about Constantinople falling to the Arabs in the 670s, so I'm not unconditionally a wanker of the Empire- I just think a lot of people seriously underestimate the strength of Rhomania when compared to pretty much anything that could be thrown at her.
It seems to me that the Empire was weak and vulnerable rather often. Weren't there instances even when the Byzantines sought aid from the Bulgarians in defense of the City?
In 718, yes, Leo III did, he wanted to use them to finish off an Arab army- but even then, Bulgarian intervention probably only hastened Rhomanian victory, rather than bringing it about.
But if the Empire was in such dire shape that they asked unruly, fur-wearing pagans to help them, then how well off were they really?
In 718? The Empire was in dire straits. But from the Roman perspective, what happened in 718 was just a continuation of that tried and tested custom of using one group of barbarians to attack another group of barbarians. It was very successfully done to the Bulgars on a number of occasions. There was nothing particularly exceptional in the circumstances, and never again until after 1204 would the Empire be in as bad a position as it was at the start of the eighth century.
It can - but its unlikely. Constantinople if actually defended is immensely difficult to take.
OTL, Nicaea had basically an ungarrisoned city to walk into and popular support.
If the Bulgarians face something similar (or see below on the issue of how bad it was at the end), they have a chance. Not necessarily a good chance, but as good as they can ask for.
The Turks did have cannon and a navy. You don't need all of the three things BG named, just at least one of them.
And of course, 1453 the city was so ill garrisoned and so worn down and so on that it might have fallen sooner or latter anyway.