I think the best move here would be what the Romans did a thousand years earlier: keep the tribes separated in small groups, unable to rally around a strong personality, resettle them in Europe and have them either join the army there or cultivate depopulated lands (or both if the Laskaris are effectively going back to the peasant-soldier model). Not sure however how feasible that is, since I don't know much about this second wave of Turks the empire experienced. However my guess is that without Michael VIII focusing almost exclusively in Europe and Andronikos II trying to rule the empire in saving mode, Nicea would retain superiority against all its neighbours. From there it would be a matter of having a diplomatically competent leadership (either delay the reconquest of Constantinople, or take it without surrendering all the perks connected to it to the Genoese).
Laskaris vs Palaiologos, of better futures for Rhomania.
- Thread starter Megas_Doux7
- Start date
I will have Theodore II and John IV Laskaris handle them as the Empire of Nicaea had for the past 50 years before, a combination of the above, punitive campaigns would establish Roman dominance in the Maenander and Sangarios river valleys. I would have the Laskaris establish Roman rule over Sogut and Dorylaeum in this TL, good points of controlling access from the plateau (ruled by the Mongols via the Sultan of Konya) to the coastal Themata. Many Turks would be recruited into the imperial army for campaigns in The Balkans, some resettled, and others even converted (though the majority would remain on their territory on the arid plateau).
The key will be maintaining the Akritae in the border regions, as the OTL Michael VIII and Andronikos II disbanded them. Turks had often entered imperial service and sometimes even converted, especially when prisoners were taken in campaigns (see John Axouch in the 12th century as an example), this will happen in doses in this TL amongst Turks captured in the border regions.
It's probably worth acquiring a copy of this there (among other army related things): https://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Bartusis_LateByzantineArmy.htm if you don't have one.
Theodore II may have different policies than Michael, but they have the same kinds of resources and problems (barring any changes because of how history unfolds differently).
Yah know if just a few things go differently and in their favor in comparison to Michael VIII a surviving laskarid dynasty could quickly retake its European lands. After all if not for a few easily winnable battles they could’ve probably retaken all of Greece and maybe dealt some good blows against Venice. I imagine that a competent Laskarid emperor with control over its European lands by the mid 1260s could do a lot in Anatolia.
That’s an excellent work actually! Bartusis makes excellent notes about the similarities between the Pronoia system and the Ottoman Timar system among others, most of the soldiers of the Empire of Nicaea would have supported by either Pronoia (for cavalry) and smaller land grants (for the Akritae)
It's fascinating. Also fascinating how much mercenaries (in the sense Bartusis uses the word) cost.
Hence Theodore II focusing on recruiting more native troops with land grants and Pronoia linked to military service, with a core of Cuman and Varangian mercenaries, the Latin Knights in particular were highly expensive!
Well, I'm counting mercenaries in the sense of "any troops the state is supporting by paying a wage to.", not just foreigners - although God save the Romans from anything like the Catalans there. The state just can't bear that.
But maintaining heavy cavalry from anywhere is going to be pricey, so we shall see once your timeline gets going.
But maintaining heavy cavalry from anywhere is going to be pricey, so we shall see once your timeline gets going.
Carter I'm Yog
Banned
If push comes to shove, calling for help is still a thing.
Especially from distant co-religionists like THE PILLAR OF ZION.
Interestingly enough, I was also thinking of Cilician Armenia, with a more successful Empire of Nicaea having a strong presence in western Anatolia, would “little Armenia” have a greater chance of survival? Perhaps an eventual Roman reconquest of Cyprus (a huge venture) would lead to the Hetumids surviving.
I reckon Theodore remarrying to one of King Hethum's daughters would continue his policy of keeping the Seljuks encircled, and give him a chance at further heirs in case John IV does early.
Yes I think that Theodore remarrying either Rita of Armenia or Theodora of Trebizond will fit with the eastern focus of the Laskaris Dynasty on Anatolia. Considering that Constantinople was reconquered in 1261 almost by accident in OTL, I will have Theodore II not achieve this until 1279 in this TL, with a delayed reconquest and a little less pressure from Charles of Anjou from the west, how would this effect Theodore II and John IV Laskaris in rebuilding a liberated Constantinople vs OTL?
Going by Crusader Kings II, I think I always wed Theodore II to Rita of Armenia and John IV to either Theodora of Trebizond or Princess Brnjača of Serbia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brnjača), given the rather small pool of choices there was.
Perhaps an even bigger question I’ve been pondering in recent days, how does a Laskarid dynasty that does not recapture The City until 1275 or so effect Charles of Anjou and the situation in Sicily? this TL will assume the battle of Pelagonia happens and that from 1259-1275 Theodore II expands against the Latins in Greece and Albania
without Constantinople falling so fast, perhaps Charles focuses on conquering Tunis? Could the Nicaeans have aided Conradin in his attempt to overthrow The Angevins in 1266?
without Constantinople falling so fast, perhaps Charles focuses on conquering Tunis? Could the Nicaeans have aided Conradin in his attempt to overthrow The Angevins in 1266?
Charles would still have his eye on the Balkans in my opinion. Constantinople aside, the man was insatiable. IOTL, he claimed and conquered Corfu and Durazzo as the dowry of King Manfred's wife, Helena Angelina Doukaina, purchased Maria of Antioch's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_of_Antioch_(pretender)) claim to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and Epirus may still choose him as an ally against the Nicaeans. Surrounded by the Nicaeans, Baldwin II and his son, Philip, may still see Charles as their last and best hope for aid/survival.
As for Conradin, who knows? Michael VIII didn't seem to support him IOTL, and after John III Vatatzes' death, his second wife, Constance-Anna Hohenstaufen, seems to have been kept at court as a hostage against Manfred
The reconquest of Constantinople was pretty opportunistic as it was and I simply cannot see it taking place long after Pelagonia if that's still a victory for the Nicaean alliance. Assuming of course the Latins leave the city lightly garrisoned at some point.
Yeah I don’t think I could delay the City recaptured by any more than 10 years so say, 1271, I wonder how Theodore Laskaris (assuming he has secured some territories in Europe such as the Morea) handles Charles of Anjou differently than Michael did OTL. Theodore would have better relations with Bulgaria, which would likely help him in the Balkans.
Really the last thing stumping me before I formally start the TL is this: Would the Sicilian Vespers have still happened, slowing down Charles' ambitions, with a more Anatolian oriented Basileus in Thedore II who does not invest heavily in it beforehand? Based on the accounts of the day, the revolt in Sicily itself began without any direct Roman involvement, with Michael VIII claiming years later that he had been an "instrument of the Sicilians freedom". I still think the Vespers could happen in this TL without Theodore II pouring so much gold into western diplomatic channels...what say you eminent megaloallagitēs of this forum?
Thanks for all the feedback and ideas all!
Thanks for all the feedback and ideas all!
I think it could happen (Charles was a hard king - not necessarily exactly a tyrant, but a hard king), but it was certainly beneficial to Aragon/the Sicilians that Michael did support it that much.
Whether that matters to Constantinople is a hard question - the objective of tying up Charles is met whether or not this ends with Sicily outside Angevin control, after all, but the better off Charles's enemies are the more the Angevins are going be weakened by this.
Whether that matters to Constantinople is a hard question - the objective of tying up Charles is met whether or not this ends with Sicily outside Angevin control, after all, but the better off Charles's enemies are the more the Angevins are going be weakened by this.
Finally with the Timurids, I plan on having the Laskarids submit as vassals to Timur, who would have them cede frontier regions such as Dorylaeum, Attalia, Kastromonu, Sozopolis amd Kotyanion to the Emir of Karaman (Timur’s regional vassal) in 1402. This would spare the richest heartland of Roman Anatolia hopefully.
As Timur dies in 1405, would it be plausible for the Romans to quickly regains those ceded territories from Karaman? From what I have read the Karamanids were never as strong as the Seljuks of Rum or the Osmanlis, I am thinking that following Timur’s death the Laskarids will move to reclaim the lands they had just ceded…
thanks for the feedback all!
As Timur dies in 1405, would it be plausible for the Romans to quickly regains those ceded territories from Karaman? From what I have read the Karamanids were never as strong as the Seljuks of Rum or the Osmanlis, I am thinking that following Timur’s death the Laskarids will move to reclaim the lands they had just ceded…
thanks for the feedback all!