Could the Byzantine Empire have survived?

Could the Byzantine Empire have survived at Nicaea?

  • Yes

    Votes: 244 79.0%
  • No

    Votes: 65 21.0%

  • Total voters
    309
To speak only about my country France this crisis is largely responsible for the disaster that was the Hundred Years' War, which lives the kingdom fail collapse literally and to disappear. Until the arrival of New Monarchs generation, in the person of Louis XI for France, who will implement the reforms which will allow the kingdom to raise the head and to prepare the entrance to the Renaissance.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Even if Byzantium succeeds in regaining control over territories lost further to Manzikert, the situation in 1260 is in a critical point in West. The feudal system is over its end, beginning the systemic crisis that we called " Crisis of the late Middle Ages ".
Not being a real specialist of the economic questions I would have difficulty in developing it in detail.

But simply put in 1260 the situation is the following one: in the campaign the farmers are too numerous and the exploitations too small for allow an increase of the production.
Consequently while arrive the " bad years " (from 1301) the production collapses because of the bad harvests generated by the bad climatic conditions. What leads to a rise in prices of raw materials as well as fall in the poverty of numerous small developers.

This rise in prices has consequences on the whole economy, pulling a contraction of the exchanges and a recession. This coupled with a phenomenon of hoarding of the currency in which is engaged the powerful, leads to a deflation of the value of the currency what increases the recession and pulls the phenomena which we know today well: unemployment of mass, political and social instability etc. etc.

Interestingly, this could end up resolving some of the Byzantines problems - and I'll explain why.

Assuming that the Byzantines can resolve their administrative problems - through a larger bureaucracy, more paperwork, [insert appropriate solution here] - this mass-unemployment could cause an interesting circumstance.

The Byzantines with their relative wealth, and less populated countrysides, at least from my understanding - could offer lands to all peasants who migrate to the country - I mean, this is ambitious, and difficult, but if the Kings of Europe recognize that they can't handle their populations and the Neo-Byzantine Empire asks, then they could use this swarm of peasants to repopulate the countryside, and act as a major recruiting ground for their forces AND reduce the taxes on the peasantry in general - then it helps solves problems for both the Romans and the Latins, and repopulates those areas whose populations are pretty low. The biggest difficulty would be language, but that isn't insurmountable if there is a focus on bureaucratic reform already - training some bureaucrats to speak a lingua romana could be useful if the immigrants aren't learning Greek.

Oddly enough, the Roman Empire reduces the issues its trade partners have, boost their own manpower base, and recover from their previous history much more quickly. Now the influx of Catholics is a potential issue here, but I don't know if it would be easy to convince those immigrants to convert, but even if they don't and the state restricts persecution, then that is a lot of problems solved.
 
Interesting but it doesn't need to count on migratory flows for it. The black plague / civil wars / famines / declines of the birth rate are loaded there.
In reality from my point of view the policy of Ioannes Vatatzès was fundamentally good: make sure that every family has a plot of land (and enough mattering so that he can benefit from it, far from the Byzantine ideal of the being self-sufficient farmer) and to bet on the internal development by favoring the local production while reducing the imports to luxury items (what weakens durably the rivals that are Venice and Genoa).

IOTL this politics proved its correctness by giving healthy economic bases to Nicaea. And it while the crisis was in its said preparatory phase of "stagflation". It is not imaginary to believe that if it had enough been maintained for a long time (until 1380) she would have allowed Byzantium to possess a capacity of economic recovery which would have made the empire one of the richest states in the 15th century.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

dont forget they need to build a navy that is able to wrest control of the seas form the Italians and curb the power of the landed magnates. Soverehn makes a good point about papermaking, perhaps the mongols when they invade the Balkans bring with them printing technology from China which gets aquired by Byzantium.
Why not just acquiring it from the Abbasids in Iraq? They've had papermaking for centuries by the time of the Komnenoi.

Even if Byzantium succeeds in regaining control over territories lost further to Manzikert, the situation in 1260 is in a critical point in West. The feudal system is over its end, beginning the systemic crisis that we called " Crisis of the late Middle Ages ".
Not being a real specialist of the economic questions I would have difficulty in developing it in detail.

But simply put in 1260 the situation is the following one: in the campaign the farmers are too numerous and the exploitations too small for allow an increase of the production.
Consequently while arrive the " bad years " (from 1301) the production collapses because of the bad harvests generated by the bad climatic conditions. What leads to a rise in prices of raw materials as well as fall in the poverty of numerous small developers.

This rise in prices has consequences on the whole economy, pulling a contraction of the exchanges and a recession. This coupled with a phenomenon of hoarding of the currency in which is engaged the powerful, leads to a deflation of the value of the currency what increases the recession and pulls the phenomena which we know today well: unemployment of mass, political and social instability etc. etc.
Hmm, this does however lead to an opportunity.

IOTL, there was a mass movement of Byzantine peasants to the cities in search of work, since most of the land was held by nobles. From this, we get a big demand for those who want to work in urban trades and related work, and from whose crafts were negatively affected by the Conservative Palaologoi policies, and the economic and maritime domination of the Italian Merchant Republics.

Now assuming here we get a Nicene state that holds a substantial tax base and territory (even the 1204 borders will be fine), we'd get enough of a revenue to build a fleet, and a large enough amount of people who would be willing to join a navy (and the associated regular payments) or state funded merchant ventures. From there, there's demand to shift the economy into a more commerce oriented direction. Also is great for clamping down on pirates, which just benefits everybody.
 
Now assuming here we get a Nicene state that holds a substantial tax base and territory (even the 1204 borders will be fine), we'd get enough of a revenue to build a fleet, and a large enough amount of people who would be willing to join a navy (and the associated regular payments) or state funded merchant ventures. From there, there's demand to shift the economy into a more commerce oriented direction. Also is great for clamping down on pirates, which just benefits everybody.

The period does not lend itself to it. Simply because the value of the currency is going to decrease strongly because of the systematic crisis. Yet with the devaluation coupled with a massive hoarding (on behalf of the noble persons, the upper middle-class persons and/or of the clergy) state coffers cannot support the cost of a too important navy (salaries + cost of maintenance and construction).
Let us not forget that in the case of the western nations (less in that of Byzantium) the appeal to the tax is still towards extremely punctual and non systematic in 1260/1350 as it is the case from the Renaissance. Over and above the fact that its perception is pretty random. Especially in Byzantium where in campaigns the farmers (except big landowners and clergy, who can be exempted from taxes) have too small exploitations to be able to support a fall in production (and thus of income) and an increase of the tax.
The state always lacking money it is forced to finance at those who have the money, the bankers (Italian in particular) or the main trade families. It is as well as was born the western capitalism.
 

Deleted member 67076

The period does not lend itself to it. Simply because the value of the currency is going to decrease strongly because of the systematic crisis. Yet with the devaluation coupled with a massive hoarding (on behalf of the noble persons, the upper middle-class persons and/or of the clergy) state coffers cannot support the cost of a too important navy (salaries + cost of maintenance and construction).
Let us not forget that in the case of the western nations (less in that of Byzantium) the appeal to the tax is still towards extremely punctual and non systematic in 1260/1350 as it is the case from the Renaissance. Over and above the fact that its perception is pretty random. Especially in Byzantium where in campaigns the farmers (except big landowners and clergy, who can be exempted from taxes) have too small exploitations to be able to support a fall in production (and thus of income) and an increase of the tax.
The state always lacking money it is forced to finance at those who have the money, the bankers (Italian in particular) or the main trade families. It is as well as was born the western capitalism.

Well that sucks. Seems the only way to fix that is to liquidate (at least part of) the nobility so the central government can collect currency, which in Romania's case means a brutal and protracted civil war in the nicest of scenarios.
 
Interesting but it doesn't need to count on migratory flows for it. The black plague / civil wars / famines / declines of the birth rate are loaded there.
In reality from my point of view the policy of Ioannes Vatatzès was fundamentally good: make sure that every family has a plot of land (and enough mattering so that he can benefit from it, far from the Byzantine ideal of the being self-sufficient farmer) and to bet on the internal development by favoring the local production while reducing the imports to luxury items (what weakens durably the rivals that are Venice and Genoa).

IOH this politics proved its correctness by giving healthy economic bases to Nicaea. And it while the crisis was in its said preparatory phase of "stagflation". It is not imaginary to believe that if it had enough been maintained for a long time (until 1380) she would have allowed Byzantium to possess a capacity of economic recovery which would have made the empire one of the richest states in the 15th century.

Wow, John III just became my most-esteemed Medieval Monarch ever for the second time.
 
Well that sucks. Seems the only way to fix that is to liquidate (at least part of) the nobility so the central government can collect currency, which in Romania's case means a brutal and protracted civil war in the nicest of scenarios.

Not inevitably. But it is actually necessary to reduce its influence and to strengthen that of the State (what was made by all the states western feudal lords). In reality it would almost be necessary to come back in Byzantium from the 8/9th century when the nobility owed its prerogatives and its privileges only to the basileus and to him only (what is not so different from the courtiers of the next centuries the Renaissance) and where the state apparatus was extremely powerful.
But such a strengthening has to lean on a strong legitimization of the Emperor and a non-questioning perms of its power in case of bad patch. Especially in case of regency or of putting on the throne of a low(weak) emperor.
It's the usurpations and the civil wars that they engender who made most evil in Byzantium, by diverting the energy and the funds of the sovereigns of the real problems which mined Byzantium. See what's happened after Manzikert or 1204 ;)
 
Yes, I think there is a good point to be made here. There is a book called the Byzantine Republic which argues that Byzantium wasn't exactly a monarchy as we think of for most of its history. Actually the emperor was a figurehead, and much of the real governing was done by the civil service.

After Manzikert, this system basically ended and was replaced by the Komnenoi, who turned the empire into a family business and appointed all the officers of state based on family connections rather than merit. This feudalised the empire and basically destroyed the core strength of the state.

Vatatzes was a great ruler, if we had seen more like him perhaps the future would have been bright. But Byzantium did need to rework its government structure. Reform was needed.
 
Yes, I think there is a good point to be made here. There is a book called the Byzantine Republic which argues that Byzantium wasn't exactly a monarchy as we think of for most of its history. Actually the emperor was a figurehead, and much of the real governing was done by the civil service.

After Manzikert, this system basically ended and was replaced by the Komnenoi, who turned the empire into a family business and appointed all the officers of state based on family connections rather than merit. This feudalised the empire and basically destroyed the core strength of the state.

Vatatzes was a great ruler, if we had seen more like him perhaps the future would have been bright. But Byzantium did need to rework its government structure. Reform was needed.

Reforms and especially redefining of the status of the emperor (what I forgot to say the last time). The emperor being considered as " Lieutenant of God " he has all power on the empire, as long as he is perceived as having God's favor (that is as long as he is victorious). But what he comes to undergo defeats or what the empire is confronted with problems and we consider that it lost the divine favor and that it is licit to knock down him to replace him by somebody who has him.
It cannot allow in the long term the birth of a stable state, because whoever can rebel in the slightest difficulty (as it was the case during 8/9 and 10th centuries). The Byzantine have necessarily to stop seeing the emperor as " Lieutenant of God " whom it is licit to replace in the slightest difficulty (because having lost God's favor).
IMO instead of it the emperor would have to be more seen as are him the western monarches: emperor by God's will.
De facto oppose his will would be oppose God's will itself, what would have consequence to reduce seriously the risk of usurpation.
Furthermore IMO it would be necessary to reduce widely, or at least to share, the power of the emperor. As made it, more or less forced, king of England with the birth of the Parliament (with whom Edouard III will never stop fighting to raise money). For Byzantium it could pass by a revival of the imperial Senate, which would allow to associate the nobility or the upper middle class to the State and thus to give it an even more solid base by associating (really) a part of the people with the power and by putting a (light) forces of opposition to the Emperor.
 
Top