Realistic Laskarid Byzantine Empire borders?

trajen777

Banned
I think as stated above the success of the Ottomans , repeatable by the Byzantines. The pressure points that need to be addressed for success would be :
1. The initial conquest of Constantinople - the cost of rehabbing it and the automatic response form the west. Perhaps you deflect this by a win at a battle like at Prinitza and the Battle of Settepozzi. In this way you minimize Latin holdings. Anyway you still need to figure your distribution of forces in the East and the West. A massive problem that need to be overcome is you probably do not have the resources to do both. Michael felt the west was more of a threat so he denuded the east (when the Turks were very weak and could have been exploited).
2. Have Manfred of Sicily become aligned with John (and not have Charles win at Benevetto). This would allow a turn to the east.
3. To make for a successful Byz you need to get defensible borders in the East. Nicaea did well against the weakened Turks and if more resources could have been allocated to the east then a slow steady expansion could have been achieved.
4. I think a reconquest of Anatolia could have happened but somehow you would have needed a combination of an early victory at a battle like Prinitza, and a naval victory over the Venetians.
 
I think as stated above the success of the Ottomans , repeatable by the Byzantines. The pressure points that need to be addressed for success would be :
1. The initial conquest of Constantinople - the cost of rehabbing it and the automatic response form the west. Perhaps you deflect this by a win at a battle like at Prinitza and the Battle of Settepozzi. In this way you minimize Latin holdings. Anyway you still need to figure your distribution of forces in the East and the West. A massive problem that need to be overcome is you probably do not have the resources to do both. Michael felt the west was more of a threat so he denuded the east (when the Turks were very weak and could have been exploited).
2. Have Manfred of Sicily become aligned with John (and not have Charles win at Benevetto). This would allow a turn to the east.
3. To make for a successful Byz you need to get defensible borders in the East. Nicaea did well against the weakened Turks and if more resources could have been allocated to the east then a slow steady expansion could have been achieved.
4. I think a reconquest of Anatolia could have happened but somehow you would have needed a combination of an early victory at a battle like Prinitza, and a naval victory over the Venetians.

The only way I could see number 2 happening is if Epirus is defeated for good and Manfred decides to offer Constance as a bride for John IV. Since John IV's grandfather, John III Vatatzes, married Manfred's sister, Constance-Anna, but had no children by her, would it be considered within the degrees of probihited kinship?
 
The only way I could see number 2 happening is if Epirus is defeated for good and Manfred decides to offer Constance as a bride for John IV. Since John IV's grandfather, John III Vatatzes, married Manfred's sister, Constance-Anna, but had no children by her, would it be considered within the degrees of probihited kinship?

No for the marriage but I don't see keeping Manfred around as absolutely necessary. The Anatolian defenses were largely dismantled by Michael for internal political reasons, as their member were firm Lascarid supported that even revolted against him, not due to the Latin pressure west.

As for John IV, Isabella Villeardouin may well be a reasonable option particularly since it comes with peacefully inheriting the principality of Achaea. In OTL after all a similar marriage was proposed between Andronikos and Isabella but her father chose instead marriage with Phillip of Sicily.
 
If we're looking at making it easier for the Laskarids to expand, why not look first at the way the Ottomans took Constantinople? Controlling the Sea of Marmara via Dardanelles and Bosporan naval forts. (Plus, send a messenger not to the Latins, but to the people of Constantinople, every year, inviting them to rejoin the Empire).

In the long-term those forts would prove useful anyway - but in the short and medium term they secure access across the sea of the Marmara for European campaigns, and later for preventing any future 1204 scenarios.

If you have that taken by an approach for a long-term naval-based strategy (perhaps a "Do what Venice did but better") you could well have the Laskarids put in place for a Mediterranean-wide strategy, which opens up some interesting doors, especially with anyone with a bone to pick with Venice.

I do like the idea, both thematically, and as a way to strengthen the Laskarids, of an Imperial Trade Compan(ies) - essentially backing up and pushing trade fleets to supplant Venice - backed by Imperial diplomacy. If the early days focus on trade and development, and then only later on (once the Romans and their Companies are stronger) start pushing diplomatic offers in Europe, a more mercantalist faction forming via Imperial policy would do quite a lot to not only strengthen the Empire, but balance out the power of traditional landowners.
 
No for the marriage but I don't see keeping Manfred around as absolutely necessary. The Anatolian defenses were largely dismantled by Michael for internal political reasons, as their member were firm Lascarid supported that even revolted against him, not due to the Latin pressure west.

I don't see keeping Manfred around as a necessity either, but what I do see as necessary is keeping Charles of Anjou away from Sicily.

And I'm slightly confused by the wording of the first four words. Do you means "No, I don't think a marriage would be in Manfred's best interests" or "No, such a marriage wouldn't be within the degrees of prohibited kinship"?

As for John IV, Isabella Villeardouin may well be a reasonable option particularly since it comes with peacefully inheriting the principality of Achaea. In OTL after all a similar marriage was proposed between Andronikos and Isabella but her father chose instead marriage with Phillip of Sicily.

Isabella (1260/1263) may be too young for John IV (1250), and if John IV still dies without issue, his immediate heir would be his sister, Eirene, and her husband, Tsar Constantine Tikh, which may not appeal to many in Rhomania or Bulgaria.

The four ladies I put up because they were around the same age, or slightly older, as John IV, but because I could see potential benefits for the realms.

a. Brnjača of Serbia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brnjača) - to ally with Serbia and possibly get a large dowry from Serbia's newfound mineral wealth.
b. Theodora Komnenos of Trebizond (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodora_of_Trebizond) - to ally with Trebizond, get prestige from a Komnenos marriage and possibly a large dowry as well, and to possibly inherit Trebizond. IOTL, Theodora took the throne from her brother with Georgian help.
c. Constance of Sicily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_of_Sicily,_Queen_of_Aragon) - to keep Latin pressure off Rhomania's western provinces.
d. Theodora of the Golden Horde (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sartaq_Khan) - the Golden Horde and Rhomania could ally with each other against the Ilkhanate and their vassals, which might help with Rhomanian expansion into Anatolia.
 
I don't see keeping Manfred around as a necessity either, but what I do see as necessary is keeping Charles of Anjou away from Sicily.

And I'm slightly confused by the wording of the first four words. Do you means "No, I don't think a marriage would be in Manfred's best interests" or "No, such a marriage wouldn't be within the degrees of prohibited kinship"?

The second.

Isabella (1260/1263) may be too young for John IV (1250), and if John IV still dies without issue, his immediate heir would be his sister, Eirene, and her husband, Tsar Constantine Tikh, which may not appeal to many in Rhomania or Bulgaria.

The four ladies I put up because they were around the same age, or slightly older, as John IV, but because I could see potential benefits for the realms.

a. Brnjača of Serbia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brnjača) - to ally with Serbia and possibly get a large dowry from Serbia's newfound mineral wealth.
b. Theodora Komnenos of Trebizond (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodora_of_Trebizond) - to ally with Trebizond, get prestige from a Komnenos marriage and possibly a large dowry as well, and to possibly inherit Trebizond. IOTL, Theodora took the throne from her brother with Georgian help.
c. Constance of Sicily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_of_Sicily,_Queen_of_Aragon) - to keep Latin pressure off Rhomania's western provinces.
d. Theodora of the Golden Horde (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sartaq_Khan) - the Golden Horde and Rhomania could ally with each other against the Ilkhanate and their vassals, which might help with Rhomanian expansion into Anatolia.

Isabella in OTL was married in 1271, by which time John would be 21 which is still pretty young. That said Theodora and Constance also would be reasonable choices.
 
The second.

Gotcha.

Isabella in OTL was married in 1271, by which time John would be 21 which is still pretty young. That said Theodora and Constance also would be reasonable choices.

I guess I've just been put in the mindset of CK2 and a documentary on Louis XV that a monarch's family and/or ministers generally wanted a king or heir to the throne to get breeding ASAP to ensure the succession of the dynasty.

Theodora of Trebizond or Theodora of the Golden Horde?
 
Gotcha.



I guess I've just been put in the mindset of CK2 and a documentary on Louis XV that a monarch's family and/or ministers generally wanted a king or heir to the throne to get breeding ASAP to ensure the succession of the dynasty.

Theodora of Trebizond or Theodora of the Golden Horde?

Of Trebizond. Sartaq khan was already dead by 1257, Berke and the Blue Horde had converted to Islam as had Nogai, so any influence though the other Theodore, if she was available for marriage looks decidedly limited and potentially even counterproductive.
 
Bumping for interest.

I've recently come back to CK2, and with it, to this idea, and I've thought of a few points to bring up:

1. We've established that Theodore II genuinely loved his wife, Elena of Bulgaria, and wrote an essay on why he refused to remarry after her death. However, might he be persuaded somehow to remarry, to at least provide a spare son? Perhaps a near-death experience convinces him of such? If so, where might he look? Previously in this thread, I've mentioned Sophia, youngest daughter of King Daniel of Galicia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_of_Galicia#Family), and either Maria or Rita, youngest daughters of King Hethum I & Queen Zabel of Armenia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hethum_I,_King_of_Armenia#Family), as candidates.

2. We've established that one of Theodore II's daughters, I'm guessing Theodora, was to be betrothed to George Nestongos, while sources say that Eudokia, Theodore's youngest daughter, was betrothed to the future King Peter III of Aragon. Personally, I don't see much reasoning behind the latter betrothal, since Aragon was too far away to help the Byzantines, even if they wanted to. I'm thinking Eudokia might be married someone else, depending on the circumstances, like Nogai Khan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nogai_Khan), Leo II of Armenia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_II,_King_of_Armenia), Abaqa Khan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaqa_Khan), or King David VI of Georgia/Imereti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_VI_of_Georgia)

3. As for John IV's potential marriage, it was narrowed down to either Theodora of Trebizond or Constance of Sicily. Of the two, Theodora seems the safer option, in that it would be less likely to draw trouble from the West, especially if Charles of Anjou still conquers Sicily as IOTL. But, after having done some reading, especially about the Kingdom of Georgia, I might have found another potential candidate - Tamar, daughter of King David VII of Georgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_VII_of_Georgia#Marriage_and_children), who it seems was only slightly younger than John. Potential legtimacy problems might not be an issue, as John III Vatatzes married Constance, an illegitimate daughter of HRE Frederick II and Bianca Lancia. And, IOTL, the later Palaiologoi emperors, including John VIII and Constantine XI, went for Georgian and Trapezuntine brides (Apparently Constantine XI was in talks for a bride from Georgia before Constantinople fell).

4. Related to the previous point, in terms of the relationship between Trebizond and Georgia, would it be correct to say that, while Trebizond may have been wealthier, Georgia was the more powerful of the two, as IOTL it sometimes interfered with the Trapezuntine succession, putting Theodora Komnenos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodora_of_Trebizond) and Anna Anachoutlou (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_of_Trebizond) on the throne?

5. If the Laskarids did end up conquering further into Anatolia, say Paphlagonia and Iconium, what are the chances of reprisal by the Ilkhanate? If I recall correctly, IOTL, the Ilkhanate was often distracted by the deaths and elections of new leaders and struggles with the Golden Horde, Chagatai Khanate and the Mamluks of Egypt.

6. Related to the previous point, would a better alliance for an Anatolian-focused empire against the Ilkhanate be the Golden Horde, the Mamluk Sultanate or both?

7. And finally, if the empire did expand further into Anatolia, what would the chances be of either recruiting and/or converting Osman and his tribe, ala John Axouch?

Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Bumping for interest.

I've recently come back to CK2, and with it, to this idea, and I've thought of a few points to bring up:

5. If the Laskarids did end up conquering further into Anatolia, say Paphlagonia and Iconium, what are the chances of reprisal by the Ilkhanate? If I recall correctly, IOTL, the Ilkhanate was often distracted by the deaths and elections of new leaders and struggles with the Golden Horde, Chagatai Khanate and the Mamluks of Egypt.

6. Related to the previous point, would a better alliance for an Anatolian-focused empire against the Ilkhanate be the Golden Horde, the Mamluk Sultanate or both?

7. And finally, if the empire did expand further into Anatolia, what would the chances be of either recruiting and/or converting Osman and his tribe, ala John Axouch?

Any thoughts?

I'm of the opinion that being Anatolian-Focused could really only work within the tolerance of the Ilkhanate, even support. Effectively being to the Ilkhanate what Moscovy would be for the Golden Horde - an enforcer and source of tribute.

So the Seljuks rebel? Romans come in and put them down, and take direct control, acting as Mongol agents. At the same time, working to expand the "Ilkhanate" in Europe and Syria at the expense of the Mamluks and Crusaders.

IMO, the last thing the Romans can afford atm is an Ilkhanate invasion. Much better to partner with them/submit to them and enforce Mongol Rule in Southern Europe and the Med. Roman garrisons, Roman generals, Roman organisation, but in service of the Ilkhanate.

The best part of this is that it works to the Romans benefit in the short term as the Ilkhanate can provide a relatively small (for them) force to unite Greece, with the Romans working on Bulgaria and Serbia once they've reorganised. If we assume that this can happen by 1300. Hopefully by this point impressing the Mongols to convert to Christianity rather than Islam. (That would be a massive post-Ilkhanate boon IMO, but isn't needed for the Romans to benefit from Roman Rule). This means the Romans can take a major leading role in a potential war with the Mamluks if we butterfly net that in, both making that more likely to succeed, but also allowing the Romans to establish their garrisons on behalf of the Mongols. (Doubly so if the Ilkhan chooses Orthodoxy as a faith).

Which means if the Ilkhanate falls as per OTL, a victory against the Mamluks can be capitalised on in the following decades from 1300, and the Romans can then assert themselves as it falls apart. If they've managed to marry into the Ilkhans family, then in the wake of the Black Death the Romans could rise as a serious contender as the leading regional power and "successor" to the Ilkhanate.

THAT is the only real way the Romans can get away without risking the Ilkhanate coming and smushing it in the metaphorical crib of its rebirth.
 
I'm of the opinion that being Anatolian-Focused could really only work within the tolerance of the Ilkhanate, even support. Effectively being to the Ilkhanate what Moscovy would be for the Golden Horde - an enforcer and source of tribute.

So the Seljuks rebel? Romans come in and put them down, and take direct control, acting as Mongol agents. At the same time, working to expand the "Ilkhanate" in Europe and Syria at the expense of the Mamluks and Crusaders.

IMO, the last thing the Romans can afford atm is an Ilkhanate invasion. Much better to partner with them/submit to them and enforce Mongol Rule in Southern Europe and the Med. Roman garrisons, Roman generals, Roman organisation, but in service of the Ilkhanate.

The best part of this is that it works to the Romans benefit in the short term as the Ilkhanate can provide a relatively small (for them) force to unite Greece, with the Romans working on Bulgaria and Serbia once they've reorganised. If we assume that this can happen by 1300. Hopefully by this point impressing the Mongols to convert to Christianity rather than Islam. (That would be a massive post-Ilkhanate boon IMO, but isn't needed for the Romans to benefit from Roman Rule). This means the Romans can take a major leading role in a potential war with the Mamluks if we butterfly net that in, both making that more likely to succeed, but also allowing the Romans to establish their garrisons on behalf of the Mongols. (Doubly so if the Ilkhan chooses Orthodoxy as a faith).

Which means if the Ilkhanate falls as per OTL, a victory against the Mamluks can be capitalised on in the following decades from 1300, and the Romans can then assert themselves as it falls apart. If they've managed to marry into the Ilkhans family, then in the wake of the Black Death the Romans could rise as a serious contender as the leading regional power and "successor" to the Ilkhanate.

THAT is the only real way the Romans can get away without risking the Ilkhanate coming and smushing it in the metaphorical crib of its rebirth.

Sounds reasonable, except for Bulgaria and Serbia. I think those have fallen out of the Empire's direct sphere of control. IOTL, Theodore II put a puppet son-in-law Tsar on the Bulgarian throne. But would the Emperor be able to/afford to swallow his pride and provide tribute and soldiers? And would his people accept it? Worst case, I see people looking to overthrow him.

As for the Ilkhanate, I doubt they would convert to Orthodoxy, especially when the territory they control is majority Islamic. IOTL, the Ilkhans were on generally good terms with Trebizond and Armenian Cilicia, but they never converted to Orthodoxy oir Miaphysitism.
 
Sounds reasonable, except for Bulgaria and Serbia. I think those have fallen out of the Empire's direct sphere of control. IOTL, Theodore II put a puppet son-in-law Tsar on the Bulgarian throne. But would the Emperor be able to/afford to swallow his pride and provide tribute and soldiers? And would his people accept it? Worst case, I see people looking to overthrow him.

As for the Ilkhanate, I doubt they would convert to Orthodoxy, especially when the territory they control is majority Islamic. IOTL, the Ilkhans were on generally good terms with Trebizond and Armenian Cilicia, but they never converted to Orthodoxy oir Miaphysitism.

I think it depends on what the Romans use to justify it. Propaganda is good at ameliorating things.

Heck, you can keep the whole "Roman arrogance" to make it work. "Like all others the Romans will persevere, we survived the Huns, the Avars, the Pechnegs, the Cumans, the Latins. We will even outlast the Mongols. Why fight those you will outlive?"

Plus, if you can make a good agreement that ties the Roman Empire either as a vassal of the Ilkhanate that would be granted all Latin territory in exchange for vast territory, or even better - a partnership in service to the Great Khan (giving the Ilkhanate a partner against the Golden Horde) then it may be a much easier sale. After all, who better to take the West for the Great Khan than the Queen of Cities and the people who used to rule it all.
 

Marc

Donor
Core problems:

The Byzantines, like most of their contemporaries, are rather rigid when it comes to religion. They may tolerate, at times, small minorities (example: the "notorious" mosque in Constantinople that upset the 4th crusaders), but the idea of ruling over a Muslim majority population isn't going to work. And that essentially makes most of Anatolia a past tense for them, unless they are going to do either ethnic cleansing (such an ugly euphemism), or mass semi-voluntary evictions, such as happened the other way when most of the Christian population of Anatolia moved to the coasts (and simply forget about ever reclaiming and incorporating Syria & Palestine).

You simply can't underestimate the crippling devastation caused by the Black Death. To make matters worse, the effect is disproportionate between urban versus rural societies. This works strongly against the Byzantines and for their Turkic rivals.

The Oghuz clans are deadly dangerous. For obvious reasons, the focus is on the Ottomans, but the reality, which can't be hand-waved away, is that nearly all of Anatolia was being taken over by newly converted, and very eager and aggressive latest wave of Turcomens off from Central Asia.

The Mongols are going to adopt Islam. Regardless of their motivations at first, that does mean that they aren't going to accept any major Christian state in the Eastern Mediterranean.
 
Last edited:
Core problems:

The Byzantines, like most of their contemporaries, are rather rigid when it comes to religion. They may tolerate, at times, small minorities (example: the "notorious" mosque in Constantinople that upset the 4th crusaders), but the idea of ruling over a Muslim majority population isn't going to work. And that essentially makes most of Anatolia a past tense for them, unless they are going to do either ethnic cleansing (such an ugly euphemism), or mass semi-voluntary evictions, such as happened the other way when most of the Christian population of Anatolia moved to the coasts (and simply forget about ever reclaiming and incorporating Syria & Palestine).

The Oghuz clans are deadly dangerous. For obvious reasons, the focus is on the Ottomans, but the reality, which can't be hand-waved away, is that nearly all of Anatolia was being taken over by newly converted, and very eager and aggressive latest wave of Turcomens off from Central Asia.

I know how rigid Byzantine religion could be. Hence I'm not suggesting the Byzantines take all of Anatolia. Just enough to make an Eastern border from (going by this map: https://www.mapsland.com/maps/asia/...ief-roads-railroads-and-major-cities-1969.jpg) Inebolu in the north, bordering the Delice River and Lake Tuz, just past Iconium, and down to Gazipasa in the south. Or, if the Byzantines end up taking over Trebizond, (going by this map - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Trebizond1204.png) the whole northern length of the Delice River.

If that makes any sense.

And the Byzantines have done/tried mass semi-voluntary evictions in the past, like during the 7th century when Justinian II tried to move Slavs into Anatolia. I think it used to be a common policy for them, actually.

It's possible the Laskarids might try something similar - breaking up clans into smaller clans/families, dispersing them across the empire as needed and having at least their children raised as Christians (something like John Axouch - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Axouch)

You simply can't underestimate the crippling devastation caused by the Black Death. To make matters worse, the effect is disproportionate between urban versus rural societies. This works strongly against the Byzantines and for their Turkic rivals.

If the Black Death still hits around 1347 AD, with a POD of about 1258 AD or earlier, the Laskarids may have gotten their act together by then long enough to mitigate or deal with such.

The Mongols are going to adopt Islam. Regardless of their motivations at first, that does mean that they aren't going to accept any major Christian state in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Technically, the Armenians, Georgians and Trapezuntines were 'major' Christian states in the East when the Ilkhanate and Golden Horde converted to Islam, but the two khanates never attempted to conquer them, as far as I know.
 
Last edited:
I think as stated above the success of the Ottomans , repeatable by the Byzantines.

There is a problem with this. The Byzantines were not the Ottomans.

Ottoman society was a blend of nomad and settled farmer, Turks, Greeks, Armenians, Slavs, Persians, Arabs. It was fundamentally a meritocracy. Advancement was based on skill rather than birth or ethnicity. The Sufi orders spread an enormously popular version of Islam to the populace. Ghazi warriors gathered to the frontier to win fame, fortune and glory. Turkish society was competitive and decentralised. Many different clans and tribes existed. This created a fertile society with great opportunities for talented individuals, regardless of background.

The Turks benefited from excellent leadership, strong military organisation, and a healthy mix combining the best elements of Persian, Arab, Greek, Turkic cultures. They were resourceful, tolerant and expansionist. Compare all this against the Byzantine society.

Byzantines had a monolithic imperial structure, with the baggage of an innate sense of superiority, a lack of flexibility, a parasitic nobility who extracted wealth while not willing to do military service (the pronoia system decayed into hereditary holdings, while holders refused to do military duty nor pay tax). The society was divided over religious and factional infighting but not in a constructive way. The burden of tax was crippling, while the military defenses were increasingly incompetent and ineffective or even worse, the empire's mercenaries plundered, raped and pillaged the Byzantine civilians they were supposed to be protecting. Numerous examples of this: the Catalan company, and the Turkic troops in the 14th century. Social mobility did not exist and the emperors in far off Constantinople often had no familiarity with or concern for local affairs on the ground in Anatolia (unlike the Turks).

Given all this it's no surprise that so many people went over to the Ottomans. Many of the Ottomans were themselves Greek converts.

Scenarios proposing the Laskarid conquest of Syria and Egypt are absurd. They might as well propose a 13th century moon landing by a Byzantine version of NASA. The Arab lands had absolutely zero prospect of being ruled by Greeks at this period, let alone mass conversion to Christianity. The entire weight of world history points strongly in the opposite direction: an Islamic conquest of the whole of Europe would be less outlandish for the time period.
 
Top