Plausibility check: Byzantine Empire capable of fighting the Mongols

With a POD after 1050, would it have been possible for the Byzantine Empire to have become capable of withstanding a Mongol invasion?
 
Probably not. They couldn't handle Turks, Venetians, Bulgars, or Frankish freelancers. Mongols dont' seem especially worse than those guys.
 

Deleted member 67076

Yes. Have the Comnenian Restoration restore Basil's Empire, or prevent Manzikert in the first place. Then have a competent emperor in charge. Although a competent emperor is more likely to just pay the Mongols off instead of fight them.

Probably not. They couldn't handle Turks, Venetians, Bulgars, or Frankish freelancers. Mongols dont' seem especially worse than those guys.
All of these were at one point beaten by the Romans. I'm not sure what you mean here.
 
All of these were at one point beaten by the Romans. I'm not sure what you mean here.

I can't help but compare a map of Byzantium in 1000 AD to 1200 AD and note that the Empire looks like it gets beaten by everyone of its neighbors.
 

Deleted member 67076

I can't help but compare a map of Byzantium in 1000 AD to 1200 AD and note that the Empire looks like it gets beaten by everyone of its neighbors.
A ship can be top of the line but if it crashes that's due to the captain.
 
Yes. Have the Comnenian Restoration restore Basil's Empire, or prevent Manzikert in the first place. Then have a competent emperor in charge. Although a competent emperor is more likely to just pay the Mongols off instead of fight them.
.

I would like to see evidence of the Mongols of the 13th C. being bought off by any polity of importance. Certainly the Byzantines could acknowledge the overlordship of the Great Khan and have vassel status, supplying troops, supplies, and monies in lieu of potential destruction. If the Mongols, at the height of their power had you in their sights, you submitted or they fought you until you were defeated.

I don't see the armies of the Empire at its greatest military might and sophistication (say under Basil II) as being as formidable or as well led as Mongol tumens under its best generals in the open field.

The question would remain of the Mongol ability to beseige and storm Constantinople. The Mongols have the engineering skill ( thanks to Chinese and Arab specialists) but they'd have to muster a navy. Of course, if the Byzantines are under this amount of the loving caresses of the Mongols attentions, probably other polities in the West have already bowed or been destroyed. Imagine the Mongols with a vassel Venice...:eek:
 
Last edited:

Lateknight

Banned
I think any pod the strengths the Romans makes the mongols unlikely the occur. We forget they steppe tribes being united isn't a historical absolute.
 
I would like to see evidence of the Mongols of the 13th C. being bought off by any polity of importance. Certainly the Byzantines could acknowledge the overlordship of the Great Khan and have vassel status, supplying troops, supplies, and monies in lieu of potential destruction. If the Mongols, at the height of their power had you in their sights, you submitted or they fought you until you were defeated.

I don't see the armies of the Empire at its greatest military might and sophistication (say under Basil II) as being as formidable or as well led as Mongol tumens under its best generals in the open field.

The question would remain of the Mongol ability to beseige and storm Constantinople. The Mongols have the engineering skill ( thanks to Chinese and Arab specialists) but they'd have to muster a navy. Of course, if the Byzantines are under this amount of the loving caresses of the Mongols attentions, probably other polities in the West have already bowed or been destroyed. Imagine the Mongols with a vassel Venice...:eek:
some points, cant vassalize venice due to lagoon tribute and nominal overlordship at best. As for otl incidents Nogai's invasion of the balkans, he defeated the romans and avaged thrace, in return the emperor paid him off with lots of money and a wife.
 
some points, cant vassalize venice due to lagoon tribute and nominal overlordship at best. As for otl incidents Nogai's invasion of the balkans, he defeated the romans and avaged thrace, in return the emperor paid him off with lots of money and a wife.

Certainly Venice can be compelled to compliance if access to its markets is curtailed. Venice is flexible enough to accept nominal vasselage (as you say) although they'd almost certainly acquiesce to a demand for ships, if needed.

Nogai was never a real physical threat to Constantinople. For one thing, he lacked sufficient troops for such an enterprise.
 
Please if they try to take Constantinoble they'll fail, Theodosians wall, while in an small city state and were poorly maintained where able to resist canons for more than 60 days whilst the walls were made back in the 7th century. They were the ultimate walls. Also they are on the other side of the Mongol Empire so they would probibly not have the chinese engineers be able to successfully siege Constantinoble.
 
I don't see the armies of the Empire at its greatest military might and sophistication (say under Basil II) as being as formidable or as well led as Mongol tumens under its best generals in the open field.

You may not see it, but it's there. I've always read of the Byzantine military, during its better moments, as being a thoroughly professional force capable of comprehending and implementing fairly sophisticated tactics and strategies. They were already very familiar with the Mongol tactic of feigned retreat, for instance, and were more than capable of recognizing it and maintaining coherence against it.

A mid-13th century Byzantium that has retaken Anatolia and has the luck of a good Emperor at the right time is actually very well suited to face down the Mongols. Then it becomes a question of whether or not the Mongols are willing and able to engage in a Song-style conquest-slot across the peninsula.

On the other hand, the Mongols are more than capable of rolling right through a Byzantium that is unprepared and under bad leadership.

So yeah, it's plausible. Not by any means definite, but plausible.
 
I think any pod the strengths the Romans makes the mongols unlikely the occur. We forget they steppe tribes being united isn't a historical absolute.

Maybe not, but I have major doubts that the rise of Genghis Khan would have been prevented by improvements in the position of an empire half a world away. I have two words: butterfly nets.
 

Lateknight

Banned
Maybe not, but I have major doubts that the rise of Genghis Khan would have been prevented by improvements in the position of an empire half a world away. I have two words: butterfly nets.

Bufferfly nets are literary device designed to create a recognizable setting when it's given that in reality such a thing could not occur.
 
You may not see it, but it's there. I've always read of the Byzantine military, during its better moments, as being a thoroughly professional force capable of comprehending and implementing fairly sophisticated tactics and strategies. They were already very familiar with the Mongol tactic of feigned retreat, for instance, and were more than capable of recognizing it and maintaining coherence against it.

A mid-13th century Byzantium that has retaken Anatolia and has the luck of a good Emperor at the right time is actually very well suited to face down the Mongols. Then it becomes a question of whether or not the Mongols are willing and able to engage in a Song-style conquest-slot across the peninsula.

On the other hand, the Mongols are more than capable of rolling right through a Byzantium that is unprepared and under bad leadership.

So yeah, it's plausible. Not by any means definite, but plausible.

On paper they recognized such tactics. In the field, in the 10th and 11th c. the Byzantine armies often fell into ambushes due to insufficient reconnaissance, didn't make good use of terrain, dashed after feigned retreats, lacked good C & C of divided forces, couldn't reign in allied forces, etc.
And these were during the glory years of the Byzantine military.
So, simply poor generalship? Underestimating their opponents? Victory disease?
When they were good, they were very very good. But when they were bad, the commanding basilius or stratego had their skulls made into drinking cups by the enemy chieftain ... ;)
 
Keep in mind the Mongols invaded both Indonesia and Japan by sea. And theyll have gunpowder, good organization and determination... Constantinople might hold, but I feel like if it got to the point of the city being vulnerable to a siege there would be a coup and the new emperor would try to strike deal involving a pretty princes and a lot of gold long before the Mongols got to the walls. Not sure if theyd accept (if they'd seen the city or gotten scouts to tell them about it before hand theyll know they need lots of gunpowder and time to starve it out) but I feel like any such confrontation would be resolve not on the battlefield but by negotiation or intrigue.
What would be really interesting would be a warlordel seizing the City from the Latin Empire and going native a LA the Yuan.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I'd entirely expect them to be able to survive a Mongol invasion if I'm honest. Assuming a Balkans & Anatolia Byzantines, then they have every territorial advantage, and aren't tearing each other to pieces, and can move and supply their army by sea as fast (if not faster) than the Mongols. Who are quite simply the wrong side of the Byzantines to conquer themselves a fleet!

However, I would concede that unless there was an unexpected alliance with the Turks against the Mongols, then Syria and Egypt could very well be lost (If the Byzantine owned/puppeted the regions). At least until a Mongol succession crisis - those were just as messy as Byzantine ones.

The Mongols are probably at the end of their logistical abilities by the point they reach the Romans, especially as a united khanate, after which, there is every chance the successor khanates will tear each other apart as OTL.

Militarily, it all depends of if the Emperor is talented, when they are, Byzantine Emperors and Empires are a sight to behold, but a bad emperor, it can go completely, and utterly, wrong - but if they still have a talented general (i.e. Justinian and belisarius) to fight the Mongols, then all their knowledge of fighting steppe tribes is there and ready to go.

But another way, ignoring military survival, disregarding their fortifications, terrain, naval mobility, tactical manuals, and likely greater strength and manpower of the region if they've remained intact, etc - the easiest way to survive an invasion (note: not defeat it :p ) is to kill the khan or his heir at the right moment. I wouldn't put it beyond the Byzantines ability to do so, and not get caught - and as such not have an angry Khanate at their doorstep. One invasion diverted/survived, and if these are real Romans, we could soon have Mongols fighting alongside Romans to reconquer their middle eastern/north africa possessions for Constantinople. (Mmmmm, Romano-Mongols in Mauritania, be still my alt-history heart).

Not that it could EVER backfire of course :D
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Keep in mind the Mongols invaded both Indonesia and Japan by sea.

You make a point there, but they also failed - understandably, they didn't have great naval tradition, nor did many other powers in E.Asia at that time (enlighten me if I'm wrong, China had great ships, but didn't really invade people with them).

The Mongols could only really build ships if they had someone and people to build them. The Byzantines just have to patrol the Black Sea, and protect the E.Med, things a strong Byzantium would be doing anyway.

In addition, whilst it isn't a wonder weapon, unless they invade Arabia first and learn their tricks against Greek Fire, the Mongols could be in serious trouble if they try to invade by sea.
 
Top