No Fall of Constantinope- Pre TL Discussion

The Zealots had nothing to do with it failing - the lack of anything to justify it had more to do with it. If it offered any benefits at all, it would be different. Its kind of important to remember it didn't.

Actually it split te romans in half. Btw I said it is a small part the major par as in my post above was the civil war. Aftercivil war it is impossible for Byzantium to recover. Sorry elfwine just not happening.
 
Actually it split te romans in half. Btw I said it is a small part the major par as in my post above was the civil war. Aftercivil war it is impossible for Byzantium to recover. Sorry elfwine just not happening.

I'm not saying it would happen - I think a POD after Andronicus II (with or without the civil war you're referring to) is too late. I'm just pointing out that blaming the Zealots for the fact that there is nothing coming out of Church Submission is ignoring the total lack of anything that did because of Papal and Latin Rite Christian refusal to do anything.
 
I'm not saying it would happen - I think a POD after Andronicus II (with or without the civil war you're referring to) is too late. I'm just pointing out that blaming the Zealots for the fact that there is nothing coming out of Church Submission is ignoring the total lack of anything that did because of Papal and Latin Rite Christian refusal to do anything.


Well I am really not blaming them but had they waited till Byzantium was in a better position... Imperial troops wouldn't have to be diverted. Actually without civil war the empire could survive. However it will at best be a regional power with little to no chance of becoming a major power. However should an analougue emperor to the likes of Joh Tzimices, Nikephros II, or Basil II arise, things could go quite differently. Without civil war the Romans would still control Macedonia and Epirus. Also with disunion among Bulgaria and Serbia it gives the Byzantines more time to focus on Anatolia. All you need is a disunited Balkans and a warrior emperor for Byzantium. After all in otl Byzantium Lost 70 percent of it's territory and Anatolia to the Arabs. With most of the Balkans under Slavic control. But it was able to make a comeback thanks to a series of warrior emperors. Basically Byzantium as of post 1300 needs a series of powerful emperors who are wiing to turn Byzantium into a military state. The best way to disunited Balkans is to to maybe have the Bulgars and serbs focus on each other. Hungary being drawn into European wars. However the finatial situation is a far bigger problem. Italians control the economy. Basically Byzantium will still need to play the Italian powers off against each other. So with carefull planning and a series of great emperors who have the same capability of skill and charisma as Heraklois or Basil can turn roman tide. Onl problem very unlikely for such an analougue to happen.
 
I am actually thinking of Constantinople being merged by marriage with Naples then merges with Spain via marriage.
 
I am actually thinking of Constantinople being merged by marriage with Naples then merges with Spain via marriage.

To what dynasty (in Naples)? Why would the Byzantines do that? How will you deal with the various other issues (starting with any male relatives or other ambitious men of the last emperor)?

Or are you assuming Naples (and Spain) are the ones inherited?
 
To what dynasty (in Naples)? Why would the Byzantines do that? How will you deal with the various other issues (starting with any male relatives or other ambitious men of the last emperor)?

Or are you assuming Naples (and Spain) are the ones inherited?

The Trastamara.
 
The Trastamara.

Very unlikely. Spain as an entity does not excist at this point IMO:p
Instead the reconquista is occuing. Why would Castile or Aragon want to help the Byzants when they have a mission to eradicate infidels from their own lands. I won't even bother going into logistics of such a situation.
Btw about Naples. They were ruled by rulers from Provence. Naples did not become a part of aragorn till well into the the mid to late 15th century. Also Naples was bus dealin with the Vespers. They hAve no time to deal with a power like Byzantium. Plus the royal dynasty of Naples at this point is French. Big difference.
 
Which...is furthering the point it was a riot and not a decision made by authorities of any sort.
Which makes the people of Constantinople more guilty in my mind. Had it been the last Komnenan Emperor's fault alone, the fact that he was gone by the time of the 4th Crusade would have meant something. Given that the people carried out much of the brutality alone they are responsible for their own suffering.

In context, it still isn't. The context of 1204 is not a response to 1182. And a medieval mind is...well, in blunt terms: There's a reason I'm on the side of the Eastern Roman Empire and not Western Christianity. The "medieval mind" being a small, diseased thing is why.
In this instance and others like it, Byzantium's mind joins the west in the gutter.

Exaggeration? Sure. But Western Christendom was...

Well, not the better half.
As I recall, the Empire compelled the Bulgarians to convert to Orthodox Christianity rather than Catholicism by sending in troops. Sounds very 'Latin' in a way.

This is a serious problem for any POD involving anti-Ottoman crusades, by the way. Louis seems better than that, thankfully.
Very true, even John Hunyadi believed in converting the Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbs. Possibly by force. ANd this was the man who waged a war in hopes of freeing Constantinople.

"Like many of his co-religionists, he hated schismatics far more than infidels and had consequently decided on a holy war of his own against the heretic Bulgars. In 1365 the frontier province of Vidin was occupied by a Hungarian army, bringing its wake quantities of of Franciscan missionaries, who immediately set about the more or less forcible conversion of the local populations."
I've heard this too, but I'm not sure how true it was given that Orthodoxy survived his reign fairly intact.
 
The Trastamara.

That's extremely problematic. The Kings and Queens of the House of Trastamara were notorious bigots and persecutors of Jews and Muslims. It's sad because prior rulers of Leon and Castile were among the few to grant Jews the same rights as their Christian citizens. Gothic Italy, Castile, Norman Sicily and Poland were some of the few really tolerant nations in Medieval Europe.

If Trastamara were to gain control of Greece and Constantinople I think their first order of business would be to wipe out the Greek Orthodox Church. The Greeks would rebel and probably choose the Turks. Even the Ottomans were more lenient.
 
No, it wasn't the family as a whole until after the Granada War.

Henry II overthrew his brother and started the dynasty. From the start he persecuted the Jews who had enjoyed so many freedoms under his brother Pedro.

Regardless, long term Trastamara rule would have led to persecution and rebellion.
 
Henry II overthrew his brother and started the dynasty. From the start he persecuted the Jews who had enjoyed so many freedoms under his brother Pedro.

Regardless, long term Trastamara rule would have led to persecution and rebellion.
I am actually planning an Avis or Plantagenet united spain ruling Constantinople actually.
 
Which makes the people of Constantinople more guilty in my mind. Had it been the last Komnenan Emperor's fault alone, the fact that he was gone by the time of the 4th Crusade would have meant something. Given that the people carried out much of the brutality alone they are responsible for their own suffering.

So a riot is as reprehensible as a deliberate decision by the people responsible? Or worse? What?

But even if we accept that - I disagree. An atrocity twenty years ago does not justify another atrocity in the present. Hell, it doesn't justify one in the first place.

Now, if you were arguing that they deserved to be held accountable, I'd agree - but sacking Constantinople isn't holding anyone accountable, its at best pure revenge.

Its a mark against Andronicus that he didn't do anything about this, but its not something where "turn about is fair play" isn't anything other than an ugly looking thing.

In this instance and others like it, Byzantium's mind joins the west in the gutter.

The West's mind is more or less permamently in the gutter when it comes to war and punishment. The East...no. (Seriously, take a look at ERE law some day, its pretty impressive by comparison even if you're not in favor of its elements in the presence). Though this depends to some extent on what laws and periods, Western law isn't significantly better in 900 than 600. ERE?

As I recall, the Empire compelled the Bulgarians to convert to Orthodox Christianity rather than Catholicism by sending in troops. Sounds very 'Latin' in a way.

I'd have to check this, but I think the circumstances are considerably different - and different or not, the issue is how this relates to the reception Louis will receive, not to some comparison of the West's inferiority to the East's superiority.

But its the kind of thing that got the idea that the Sultan was better than the Cardinal (which speaks wonders for just strongly people felt about 1204 and following Latin rule - given how the ERE has accepted men as unimperial as Basil the Macedonian, that the Latins come off as barbarians is saying something that we should remember).

Very true, even John Hunyadi believed in converting the Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbs. Possibly by force. ANd this was the man who waged a war in hopes of freeing Constantinople.

Should have been clearer - Louis has his head on straight when it comes to fighting campaigns (so does John Hunyadi).

The religious issue...Louis doesn't seem better.

I've heard this too, but I'm not sure how true it was given that Orthodoxy survived his reign fairly intact.

It certainly would, even if unsuccessful, reflect someone who has an attitude towards "schismatics" that is not the one you want here - you need someone who respects or at least tolerates the ERE and its bizarre religious ideas (I like the ERE but I'm always up for mocking things that take themselves too seriously).

On the issue of foreign rulers: All of these sound like they'd have problems, and I'm assuming that "Western Catholic" isn't enough to inspire a rebellion just to make a point.
 
Turkey the empire did not compel bulgarians to convert. They converted on their own.This is what happened. Basicaally After the slavs invadee and took most of the balkans they converted to orthodoxy. However with the advent of Krum in Bulgaria, the Bulgartians wanted to be inependanty and conquer Constantinole. So they split of from the orthodox church of Constantinople to create the Bulgarian patriarchate. Basil II ended the Bulgarian empire. He did not abolish the bu;lgarian patriarchate. instead he actually made it into an archbishopric that answers to the emperor not Patriarch. So the church actually gained power after byzzies conquered Bulgaria.
 
The Orthodoxy/Catholicism thing was handled by a Council (in the Church sense) and diplomacy - the only force used that I can recall in that period is within Bulgaria by the ruler having a problem with backsliding pagans and a weak son.

One should not confuse ERE vs. Bulgarian conflict with religious disputes.
 
Turkey the empire did not compel bulgarians to convert. They converted on their own.This is what happened. Basicaally After the slavs invadee and took most of the balkans they converted to orthodoxy. However with the advent of Krum in Bulgaria, the Bulgartians wanted to be inependanty and conquer Constantinole. So they split of from the orthodox church of Constantinople to create the Bulgarian patriarchate. Basil II ended the Bulgarian empire. He did not abolish the bu;lgarian patriarchate. instead he actually made it into an archbishopric that answers to the emperor not Patriarch. So the church actually gained power after byzzies conquered Bulgaria.
They chose to convert to Christianity on their own but not to Orthodoxy. Boris I at first favored Catholicism, but sent the Frankish missionaries home after a Byzantine army gathered on his borders.
 
They chose to convert to Christianity on their own but not to Orthodoxy. Boris I at first favored Catholicism, but sent the Frankish missionaries home after a Byzantine army gathered on his borders.

Where is your source on it being in response to a Byzantine army on his borders?
 
Top