Roman Empire-1340s

B-29_Bomber

Banned
I read something about the Empire during this time and I am more than a little skeptical about, seeing as I got it from Wikipedia.;)

First off:

1) John Kantakouzenos. Wikipedia paints him as someone of little to no Imperial Ambition and was only forced to become Emperor due to circumstance. How accurate is this? Seems to be a little one-sided to me.

2) Achaea. The Principality of Achaea seemed to have sent an offer to surrender to Constantinople's control in return for certain guarantees. It was also implied that, assuming the offer was legit, that the Duchy of Athens might have followed suit. Was this ever even remotely a thing? Seems this was way too good to be true. If it is true was is the likelihood that this was anything less than a legitimate offer of Surrender? And if it were legit, would Athens have done so as well and why would they?
 
I read something about the Empire during this time and I am more than a little skeptical about, seeing as I got it from Wikipedia.;)

First off:

1) John Kantakouzenos. Wikipedia paints him as someone of little to no Imperial Ambition and was only forced to become Emperor due to circumstance. How accurate is this? Seems to be a little one-sided to me.

2) Achaea. The Principality of Achaea seemed to have sent an offer to surrender to Constantinople's control in return for certain guarantees. It was also implied that, assuming the offer was legit, that the Duchy of Athens might have followed suit. Was this ever even remotely a thing? Seems this was way too good to be true. If it is true was is the likelihood that this was anything less than a legitimate offer of Surrender? And if it were legit, would Athens have done so as well and why would they?

Soverihn can probably answer this if he wasn't so busy.
 

Deleted member 67076

I read something about the Empire during this time and I am more than a little skeptical about, seeing as I got it from Wikipedia.;)

First off:

1) John Kantakouzenos. Wikipedia paints him as someone of little to no Imperial Ambition and was only forced to become Emperor due to circumstance. How accurate is this? Seems to be a little one-sided to me.
Fairly accurate. John really didn't to be emperor, he wanted to be the regent for the young John V. Historically, the guy did everything he could to avoid war and avoid crowning himself emperor, only doing so well after the Civil War had been underway, and mostly to appease his troops. John K was Andronikos III's best friend, and had plenty of respect for the man and his family- and its because of this that he felt that he was best suited to become regent and de facto ruler rather than the boy's mother, Anna of Savoy.

2) Achaea. The Principality of Achaea seemed to have sent an offer to surrender to Constantinople's control in return for certain guarantees. It was also implied that, assuming the offer was legit, that the Duchy of Athens might have followed suit. Was this ever even remotely a thing? Seems this was way too good to be true. If it is true was is the likelihood that this was anything less than a legitimate offer of Surrender? And if it were legit, would Athens have done so as well and why would they?
Achaea is likely, after all John Kantakouzenos managed to restore rule over Thessaly and re-integrate the Despotate of Epirus without much of a fight and it looked like the Byzantine empire was on the upswing. I'm much less certain over the potential of Athens willingly giving themselves up, but the barons wouldn't lose too much authority in the Byzantine Empire at this time and its not like they would be in a position to bargain for much (should Achaea be integrated they'd have been surrounded on all sides by the empire and the manpower disparity would be critical). So yes, Athens might be peacefully re-integrated.

You have to note that John Kantakouzenos was a masterful diplomat and statesmen, able to manipulate leaders and get them to do his bidding with little cost to him, even if giving the Ottomans Galipoli bit the empire in the ass in the long run. A good example of this is the man's friendship with Umar Bey in the Aydinid emirate.
 
Fairly accurate. John really didn't to be emperor, he wanted to be the regent for the young John V. Historically, the guy did everything he could to avoid war and avoid crowning himself emperor, only doing so well after the Civil War had been underway, and mostly to appease his troops. John K was Andronikos III's best friend, and had plenty of respect for the man and his family- and its because of this that he felt that he was best suited to become regent and de facto ruler rather than the boy's mother, Anna of Savoy.


Achaea is likely, after all John Kantakouzenos managed to restore rule over Thessaly and re-integrate the Despotate of Epirus without much of a fight and it looked like the Byzantine empire was on the upswing. I'm much less certain over the potential of Athens willingly giving themselves up, but the barons wouldn't lose too much authority in the Byzantine Empire at this time and its not like they would be in a position to bargain for much (should Achaea be integrated they'd have been surrounded on all sides by the empire and the manpower disparity would be critical). So yes, Athens might be peacefully re-integrated.

You have to note that John Kantakouzenos was a masterful diplomat and statesmen, able to manipulate leaders and get them to do his bidding with little cost to him, even if giving the Ottomans Galipoli bit the empire in the ass in the long run. A good example of this is the man's friendship with Umar Bey in the Aydinid emirate.

Please, tell us more.
 
F

You have to note that John Kantakouzenos was a masterful diplomat and statesmen, able to manipulate leaders and get them to do his bidding with little cost to him, even if giving the Ottomans Galipoli bit the empire in the ass in the long run. A good example of this is the man's friendship with Umar Bey in the Aydinid emirate.
eh I am not so sure the guy who brought the Ottomans into Europe, and whose attempt at revolt over the regency that lead to the devastation of the byzantine heartland and also lead to the point of no return for the empire was brilliant. He may not have had much imperial ambitions but he was very shortsighted in his policies and his bid to the regency especially in such a delicate period for the empire was quite foolish. While the regency was disliked, he should have worked with it at least till the threats immediately surrounding the Byzantines in Greece, Balkans, and Anatolia. As for manipulating leaders, again a bit iffy. He was not so successful with Serbia or Bulgaria as in the case of the regency and I believe the Ottos joined him only because they viewed it as a brilliant opportunity to invade europe/weaken the byzantines..
 
The problem with a fair assessment of Kantakouzenos is that the main source about his reign and life are his own memoirs. On the other hand it is true that if he wanted to become emperor, he had plenty of chances for doing so: when Andronikos III was ill and as yet childless, he proposed him as regent, and he turned it down; right after Andronikos III died; at the end of the civil war, instead of deposing the Palaiologoi, he just added himself as senior emperor; and even in the end, he preferred to abdicate rather than an all-out last-ditch effort to keep the throne.

IMO he was certainly a rather capable man and an experienced soldier and diplomat, and always tried (but rarely succeeded) to make the best of a very bad situation. The problem is that from the moment Byzantium was in a civil war, he had few options, and all of them bad. Saying that he should have nobly self-sacrificed himself his family and his followers for the sake of unity is not only speaking from hindsight, but also goes against human nature. And by the time he was able to run the state as emperor, it was so diminished that every effort backfired. Plus the Black Death, of course. A massively unlucky fellow, Kantakouzenos was...
 
John Kantakouzenos was a capable soldier, diplomat, politician, and theologian. His problem was also his greatest gift; humility. Given the way the empire was seldom stable or competently governed under any Palaiologos emperor after Michael VIII, it seems that the years preceding the second Byzantine civil war of the fourteenth century offer the last real chance for any prospect of Byzantine endurance and survival.
 

Deleted member 67076

Please, tell us more.
On what would happen next? Well, should the Duchy of Athens be reintegrated the Byzantines now have a culturally homogenous, decently sized realm with a good amount of resources. This should really help them out being able to defend in the Balkans and grant the much needed manpower to help sustain a medium sized army of around 13-15,000. However, this does nothing to curb the power of the aristocracy or fix the economic issues of the state, so simply annexing more land in Greece won't be enough to return the empire to its former glory.

Should Andronikos decide to embark on a path of centralization and taxation of the vast landed estates in the realm, the empire is on a much better future. But even getting that to happen is likely to cause a revolt or two.

eh I am not so sure the guy who brought the Ottomans into Europe, and whose attempt at revolt over the regency that lead to the devastation of the byzantine heartland and also lead to the point of no return for the empire was brilliant. He may not have had much imperial ambitions but he was very shortsighted in his policies and his bid to the regency especially in such a delicate period for the empire was quite foolish. While the regency was disliked, he should have worked with it at least till the threats immediately surrounding the Byzantines in Greece, Balkans, and Anatolia. As for manipulating leaders, again a bit iffy. He was not so successful with Serbia or Bulgaria as in the case of the regency and I believe the Ottos joined him only because they viewed it as a brilliant opportunity to invade europe/weaken the byzantines..
All true.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
On what would happen next? Well, should the Duchy of Athens be reintegrated the Byzantines now have a culturally homogenous, decently sized realm with a good amount of resources. This should really help them out being able to defend in the Balkans and grant the much needed manpower to help sustain a medium sized army of around 13-15,000. However, this does nothing to curb the power of the aristocracy or fix the economic issues of the state, so simply annexing more land in Greece won't be enough to return the empire to its former glory.

Should Andronikos decide to embark on a path of centralization and taxation of the vast landed estates in the realm, the empire is on a much better future. But even getting that to happen is likely to cause a revolt or two.


All true.

My general summation of Andronikos III goes against this notion of reform. He was a good general, however he was a poor Administrator and preferred to delegate. Luckily for the Empire, Adronikos was a good delegator.

Another question: The fate of the Despotate of Morea. If the Empire reclaimed these lands would they and the Despotate be brought directly back into the empire or would the Despotate gain these new lands?

For context: I'm creating a scenario where the Empire avoids the civil war in EUIV: MEIOU&Taxes where Morea is represented as a vassal.
 
Wouldn't the Latin lords in Achaea and Athens still keep those lands as they integrate themselves into the Empire? IIRC that's what the offer of surrender would mean and it's hard to imagine they would ever agree to it otherwise.

Also, there was technically no Despotate of Morea (or any other Despotate) in the Roman Empire; Despot was a honorific title not tied to any territories, and it wasn't even supposed to be hereditary.
 
Top