Eastern Roman Empire without Mongol Influence

Just like the other posts we've got a timeline in which the Mongol Conquests only lasted from 1236 to 1241 after which they are driven back to Central Asia. From that point on they have no influence outside Central Asia. There is no Black Death in this timeline. I was wondering how the Eastern Roman Empire would fare in this situation?

Europeans are much stronger without any lasting Mongol Influence. The Sultanate of Rum, to which the ERE was losing prior to the Mongol Invasions was also left intact in this timeline. Would the ERE plausibly be able to reach a stalemate in this timeline or would they be swept away by the Rum advance? If the ERE can reach a stalemate, could it ever recover afterwards and break the stalemate?

If Rum overcomes the ERE where does it go from there? Does it advance into Central Europe north into Central Europe or attack the Italian Peninsula? Does it attack the other nations in the Middle East? How long might Rum last and how successful would it be?
 
Last edited:
It would seriously depend on a number of circumstances. I want to give a long answer but that would require more info. Simply put, they would be in a slightly better position to reassert their position but would in no way be any kind of major power (unless there's more to work with here.) I mean if they continue they continue the age old tradition of civil wars then I'm not completely sure they even have time to make use of the added population boost.
 
@Russian sorry about that. These are the forums where we've been discussing the timeline: (https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-of-north-america.422086/page-2#post-15426213) and (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/how-high-can-we-get-the-world-population.421571/) and (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/kievan-rus-reunified.420829/)

To sum up the timeline so far the Mongols are defeated at the Battle of Badger Mouth. The Mongols lose many troops. Muquali and Ogedei Khan are killed. Jin reinforces their border at Zhangjiakou and the other passes through the great wall. The weakened Mongols continue their campaign westwards. During the invasion Europe the Mongols manage to get as far as northern France. Horse archery worked well in wide open spaces but in the dense forest of 1200's France the Mongol horse archers did not work as well. Using this to their advantage, the French managed in inflict a crippling defeat on the Mongols. Emboldened by this victory the other nations in Europe which had surrendered to the Mongols revolted and attacked the Mongols. During their retreat out of Europe the Golden Horde suffered savage losses (their numbers at that point were down to about 12-15% of what they had prior to the Battle of Badger Mouth) and began a retreat back to Central Asia. Jin and Song became threatened when they learned exactly what the Golden Horde had been up to and how far they had conquered. Jin and Song separately began attacks on the Mongols and shattered what's left of the Golden Horde.

Bit of a misunderstanding about when the conquests were. I meant that there are no Mongol invasions of anywhere outside Central Asia after 1241. This means that no invasions of the Middle East occur, such as the Mongol takeover of the Sultanate of Rum. The Abbasid Empire is untouched by the Mongols and presumably lasts for a bit longer. The great library of Baghdad is still intact and the destruction of the irrigation canals is avoided. Because the Eastern Europeans no longer have to deal with the Mongols after 1241 the rise of Moscow has been butterflied away.

The Song go on to start exploring the world in the 1200's in preparation for a circumnavigation attempt. They make contact with Central American civilizations and start trade, bringing technology to them and spreading potatoes from Peru to the entire world, boosting the entire world's population significantly. Song explores northwards and discovers the peoples of Siberia. Trade with these peoples results in technological exchange and by the 1400's there's trade flowing into Europe across the Volga from various Siberian Kingdoms. When the trade routes to Europe through the Middle East are cut (the nations there won't let western traders travel through), trade to China simply diverts across the Volga river through territory already mapped by the native Siberian Kingdoms.

by the late 1300's most civilizations in the Americas, Africa, South East Asia and Asia have guns and tech approaching what China has. By the 1400's the Siberians achieve this. There is a global trade network in place by the 1300's allowing exchange of technology and ideas. If the Byzantine Empire can survive in this scenario to the 1400's then ships from the global trade network will start arriving in ports around the Mediterranean Sea. Those ships might not be too useful however as the powers of the Middle East could be attached to the same trade network.

In Europe the Reconquista takes back the entire Iberian Peninsula. Due to butterflies radiating out from the POD at the Battle of Badger mouth at the speed of human interaction we can assume that many major people in Europe have been butterflied out of existence. Michael VIII Palaigolos for example is never born. The ERE Emperors in this timeline did manage to retake some of the land conquered by the crusaders in the Fourth Crusade. My current draft has the Empire of Nicaea taking the Latin Empire, the Empire of Thessalonica then by the mid 1300's absorbing the Empire of Trebizond. At that point they focus their efforts on the Sultanate of Rum, which has until that point been attempting to expand into the Abbasid Empire and the Ayyubid Sultanate. Does the ERE expanding this much sound likely or if not how far would they get? Would it be the Despotate of Epirus or the Empire of Nicea be the one to reunify the ERE?

If the opportunity arises in that timeline's Reconquista the ERE might temporarily delay an attack on Rum to "help out" Spain in the Reconquista. As part of this effort they could take and establish forts on both sides of the Strait of Gibraltar. The condition for their help is that they can be granted control of these forts. By taxing ships passing through the strait the ERE could secure another source of income. They offer to pay a percentage of the profits from these forts as rent and in exchange the ERE will pay for the upkeep and defense of these facilities which should discourage any further attacks into the Iberian Peninsula from North Africa.

Since Eastern Europe is now in a stronger position would they even have the capability to significantly help the ERE? Would the Eastern Roman Empire even be willing to call for assistance from any of the nations there? Once an Eastern European nation gets a trade route to China running through it, would that be enough to allow a reunification of the Kievan Rus? I imagine that such a route might go through the south of the Volga. The nations of Eastern Europe, realizing how valuable it was might move to take control of the point where the trade route crosses the river. Whomever can control that point for a prolonged period of time may have a serious advantage over the rest of Eastern Europe. Which of the nations might be able to win such a conflict?

Sometime in the 1400's the HRE observes the conflict in the south of the Volga and realizes that unification of the Kievan Rus is now a possibility. With this threat looming on the horizon would this be enough for the states of the HRE to start ceding more power to the Holy Roman Emperor and beginning a process of having people identify not as part of their state or town, but foremost as citizens of the HRE?

Because the trade route from Europe to China has diverted through Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe is now a high priority target for any power that can topple the ERE. Central Europe (as in OTL) is also a potential target for such powers (Battle of Vienna). With both Vienna and Kiev in particular becoming targets of any power defeating the ERE would we see the HRE and Eastern Europe helping the ERE in order to use them as a buffer? Would it be plausible for them to think in such a way and realize this threat? If so, would the states of Eastern Europe even have the power to influence the expansion of the ERE in any way?

About saying Central Europe. That was a typo. Good catch Russian. I've fixed the post.

@The Merovingian I've added quite a bit more info. Sorry about the long post.

I'm new to Alternate History so I would appreciate any feedback and suggestions for improvement.
 
Last edited:
If the Byzantine Empire can get back to their strength before the fourth crusade, how long would it take for them to take back Anatolia? Could they even accomplish this task?
 
Even if they get back to pre-fourth crusade levels, the Byzantine Empire seems to be in decline. The Ottoman Empire who destroyed the Byzantine Empire in OTL emerged from what was previously Rum territory. We may actually see the Byzantine Empire destroyed even faster in this timeline.
 

trajen777

Banned
You need to resolve several things. If you can do the Mongol withdraw after 1242 then you have the destruction of the Seljuk in this year. The Nicean empire was doing well (had rebuild some of the thematic army to protect in the east. So a thought :
1. 1242 Seljuk's destroyed by Mongols
2. Nicaea expansion (hire xxx Mongols etc) to occupy up to the Taurus mts --- 1242 - 1259
3. Let Epirus and Bulgaria and the Latins fight over and over with no gains in the West.
4. Consolidate in the East - have peace treaties with the East in 1259.
5. Now with the resources of Anatolia and their rear in 1259 -- get lucky in 1260 and find Constantinople undefended (you need to the be the emperor in Const to be legitimate)
6. Now the tough part -- in the real world you ended up with troops pulled over and over form the east (see book by Mark C. Bartusis on Late Byz army ) to reinforce the west while the east collapsed. IN this case you would have the Thematic forces defending the East (in Bartusis you had an army of over 20,000 prof soldiers in the empires military) and the higher % of prof soldiers involved in the reconquest in the east.
7. So lets say you have a stronger base of economy in Anatolia (you need peace on the borders) and the good prof army of Michael VII. Have him win at
Battle of Prinitza (should have won easy).
8. Now another hard part -- you need to work out a peace arrangement with the West -- they would be in a better position with a stronger military
9. From here you are in a decent position - perhaps better -- Better ::: You have Anatolia (with secure borders so the sea front is protected with better yields and the interior is productive) - Better army - and credibility Worse :: You need to balance the religions (Pope) and you have a constant war with the Italian merchants trying to protect their merchants.
 
@trajen777 , thanks for the reply. That sounds like a good plan.

Would there be any way to make peace with those Italian merchants? If they feel they need to protect themselves then the Byzantines could invest in securing the route and making overtures to those on the Italian Peninsula to assure them that their merchants will always be welcome. Would the Pope accept a religious division of Europe? There were already defined areas dominated by either Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. They could agree to maintain the religious status quo and and work together so that they might better resist their other enemies.

If the Byzantine Emperors can resist attacking the west as per your plan they'd certainly be in a good position. Do you think it likely that they might resist the temptation? Clear headed emperors would see that this plan makes logical sense. Boost the power of your nation first, increase income then concern yourself with the west later. Towards the end OTL some emperors seemed to get caught up in attacking the west. Would this simply be a strange OTL occurrence or was it the likely course of events?

Once they've consolidated their power, would we see them trying to retake Ceuta? They'd get another stream of income from the Strait of Gibraltar and they could claim they are "helping" out the Spanish. How are the Byzantines going to treat the Muslims under their rule?
 
Last edited:
@trajen777 , good point about dividing them against themselves. The states on the Italian Peninsula were pretty divided OTL.

if the Byzantines can build up their fleet strength and consolidate their power in Anatolia could they simply "whether the storm" from the Italian Peninsula? The French Italian wars demonstrated that a large centralized state could overpower the divided cities of the Italian Peninsula. The Byzantines could concentrate on increasing their strength elsewhere and leave the Italian Peninsula alone for the most part. Even if the Italians couldn't be turned into allies, allowing free passage of merchants and securing the route could decrease the frequency of conflicts. When they decide to attack, the Byzantine Empire can fight them off and go back to whatever they were doing before.

When is the earliest that the Italian Peninsula could unify? With the Byzantine Empire trying to keep them divided this could take awhile. The area might unify against a hostile invader such as France or the HRE. If the Byzantines keep them divided against each other for long enough unification could be a collective Italian rejection and overthrow of more than a century of Byzantine manipulation.
 

trajen777

Banned
Yes i am very confident that the Byz could have withered the storm :
1. Anatolia secure - and each year more revenue would be gained.
2. As the fleet becomes more secure the black sea trade would come back to Byz vs Italian states
3. The Ital trade would have to flow along the Anatolia coast to the Crusader states and Egypt - a strong Byz fleet could intercept these along the way
4. Each Med or Black sea ship or each less Itl trader in Byz would reduce Itl revenue (less $$ for ships - trade - military)

So for a while (while they build up the rev on hearth tax and trade) they would need to play the Itl states off against each other. Also getting the Germans in alliances to attack from the north. As the fleet became stronger then they could use long raider ships to attack commerce, larger fleets to defend the coast, and a very large fleet in the Adriatic to shut the access to the Med.
 
@trajen777 . Now that seems like a good plan.

How big could the Byzantine Empire get after such a rebirth? Could we see them growing to rival the extent of the OTL Ottoman Empire?
 

Deleted member 67076

The main benefit of no Mongols entering Anatolia is there is no influx of Turkish bands; paradoxically the crushing of the Sejuqs made the border with Rome weaker due to the influx of many new Central Asian tribes eager to carve out territory in Roman land. This gives the empire vital breathing room to focus in Europe and then swing back east to Anatolia, where the Seljuqs were undergoing a period of weak Sultans, a position they can take advantage of.
 
What about the Daughter of Manfred marrying the Byzantine Emperor instead of the King of Aragon..that might help in the long term.
 
@Soverihn that looks good for a Byzantine expansion. How far might they be able to get?

@kasumigenx , an alliance with Sicily through Constance would definitely give the Byzantines a good boost.

How does the rest of Europe fare in this scenario? It's possible that the King of France not having a male heir and his nearest relative being English would be unlikely to be repeated in another timeline so the Hundred Years War may be butterflied away. In this timeline England remains Catholic. The lack of Russia in this timeline as well as Byzantine tampering with the Italian Peninsula would change things as well. The nations of Europe such as Spain, Austria and France might have a much harder time dominating the Italian Peninsula.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

Hmm I'm not sure. This depends on who's in charge of the Byzantine state (if Michael VIII still gets in charge, then there's less chance of eastward expansion since his main focus was on the Balkans and he relied heavily on landed magnates who weren't as keen to defend the eastern frontier) AND if Charles II of Sicily actually manages to take the throne in Sicily (wasn't entirely a given). If Charles fails, the Byzantines get their breathing room since much of the army wouldn't be lost fighting off the Sicilians. Then they'll expand east and take back some land, best case scenario I'd think would be the Pontic coast and much of Phrygia and Pisidia by early 1300s.

If the Laskarids are in charge, I'd expect more eastward expansion than that but at the cost of the Balkan conquests (Although the upside is the army is cheaper due to less mercenary troops, more loyal, and more native Greek, which might end up giving the Greek state more money). If Charles II still comes, then he batters most of Epirus (and probably some of Bulgaria) meaning it'll be easy for the Byzantines to sweep into much of Macedonia and Thrace anyway.

Of course, we need to look at the Elephant in the room: The Seljuqs. From what I remember, without the Mongols the Seljuqs would still face a number of revolts which would keep them occupied during the 1240s-50s. These were big revolts mind you, and would still weaken the state (and critically their eastern frontier) giving oppertunity for the Romans in the east.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Even if they get back to pre-fourth crusade levels, the Byzantine Empire seems to be in decline. The Ottoman Empire who destroyed the Byzantine Empire in OTL emerged from what was previously Rum territory. We may actually see the Byzantine Empire destroyed even faster in this timeline.

Actually during the exile period with the Laskarids rule the Nicene Empire was actually flourishing economically. During this period the Laskarids promoted low born individuals to positions of power rather than support the Dynatoi, unlike the Komnenoi and Angeloi. The Laskarids were also extremely popular in Anatolia.

It was the lack of this popularity that contributed to the rapid loss of Anatolia by the Palaiologoi after the death of Michael VIII. Indeed, it led to a bit of a vicious cycle, where the Palaiogoi, not having much popularity in Anatolia (being seen as a usurper; which they kind of were), leading to the Palaiologoi not prioritizing the region's defenses and heavily taxing the region, leading to a further decrease in popularity.

Without the overthrow of the Laskarids (which is easily doable) the Empire might lose some ground in Anatolia but they aren't likely to lose everything like IOTL. Indeed, it's entirely possible for the Laskarids to reform the Empire just enough to give the Empire a second wind of sorts.

Also, just because the Sultanate of Rum avoids the Mongols, doesn't mean they don't collapse later on. The root causes of the collapse are still there, all it takes is a similar defeat ITTL to the one that did it in OTL. If it were the Romans that did it, all the better, because that'll lead to the Romans rolling up the newly independent Beyliks.

In short, Worst case scenario with a continued Laskarid Dynasty is the Empire maintaining control over the Aegean coastline as far inland as Philadelphia.

Best case scenario, they recover all of Anatolia.

Most likely, somewhere in between.
 
@Soverihn , it seems that the events leading up to the Palaiologoi taking charge were a unlikely quirk of our timeline. The second last Laskarid ruler, Theodore II happened to have epilepsy (born after the POD) and this killed him at a time when his son was still in his infancy. The man born instead either doesn't have epilepsy or survives until his child reaches adulthood, resulting in the Laskarids retaining power. Charles II of Sicily has been completely butterflied out of existence (born 43 years after POD). The POD is the Battle of Badger Mouth in China (1211 AD) and Theodore II was born in 1222 AD, 11 years after the POD. Do you think that the butterflies from the POD would reach Byzantium fast enough to erase Theodore II from existence?

@B-29_Bomber , good points on the Laskarids. This will definitely help with a Byzantine resurgence :) The Abbasid Caliphate might survive longer than it did OTL. Could the Byzantine Empire be able to take advantage of its weakened state in any way?

@Soverihn and @B-29_Bomber thanks for the info about the instability of the Seljuks. This would definitely help out with the Byzantine revival.
 

Deleted member 67076

Do you think that the butterflies from the POD would reach Byzantium fast enough to erase Theodore II from existence?
Maybe? I doubt the exact same person would come about (and hence the epilepsy), but geostrategic changes definitely won't for several decades.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Could the Byzantine Empire be able to take advantage of its weakened state in any way?

No. Roman intrigues will be largely limited to Anatolia, the Balkans, and the West.

This would definitely help out with the Byzantine revival.

To be clear, removing the Mongols from the equation is unnecessary for this task (in many ways it's superfluous). All you have to do is keep the Laskarids in power.

but geostrategic changes definitely won't for several decades.

Maintaining the Laskarid Dynasty would have dramatic effects on the Geostrategic situation from the word go.

For one thing the interactions between Constantinople and the Latins/Papacy will be likely completely different.

For another, with far greater support in Anatolia for the regime combined with a far stronger and obvious Turkish threat, Constantinople will have a far greater reason to put up a sturdier defense in the East.

This means the Romans will be able to put on a more convincing show of great power status than OTL and be much more relevant going into the 14th century.
 
Top