Classic EU4 strategy, isolate their European territories with a naval blockade and then siege them down one by one.
The eagle's left head
- Thread starter Lascaris
- Start date
On a different note, purely one on one right now,the ‘One True’ Empire should have enough resources to overwhelm the Ottomans.
Which is the one true empire? Because one notes Alexandros II is not claiming to be basileus of the Romans...
Time to drop the charades. We all know what he really thinks of the Palaiologos. That he chose to crown himself with their crown jewels said quite enough. He literally has more Rhomans in his domain that the Palaiologos in theirs.
Last edited:
The empire didn't have much of a navy by the end, or the troops to capture the castles, so for them, it wasn't really a viable strategy. The Laskarids ITTL however, are a different story. Besides it's not like I'm advocating for it to happen immediately, for this war Alexandros II should focus on Crete, Cypress, and any remaining islands in the Aegean. Then after another recovery and consolidation period, take Constantinople from the Palaiologos who are probably little more than an Ottoman vassal at this point, (which provokes them into a war) seal the straits, and go after the Ottoman's European territories.
Last edited:
Thing is that, his opinion of the Palaiologos notwithstanding, this 'charade', is still, quite useful for the Alexandros, now when it will let stop being so...
I think that would be worth to be noted that if Alexandros or even his successor would, if so wished, get enough either willing or paid ones supporters as for either that would open the gates for him and/or depose the current ruler of Constantinople.
But, again, it, at this instance, it would be more like a 'white elephant' that would bring him more troubles than advantages...
So, I'd risk to foresee that before that the Sicilian Basilei may take the ERE imperial mantle and will make their triumphal entry into Constantinople... Would be possible, that may be a war between the two rising E. Mediterranean/Balkans powers, i.e., the Sicilians Hellenes and the Ottomans...
What is actually the point of the charade again?Time to suppress the Palaiologian Uprising started nearly 100 years ago. Once the war with the Latins are over,it would be a good time to deal with the Ottomans and the Palaiologos at once.Don’t want the Turks’ foothold in Europe to get bigger.
Last edited:
The Palaiologoi stole the throne from the Lascarids at their moment of triumph, so it is time for payback!
After taking over, officially pass an some kind of memoriae indamnatio on them. Condemn all of them for their idiocy, greed etc. Deem all the emperors starting from Michael IX false emperors.
Construct the idea that the Lascarids are the saviours of the empire appointed by God, and it was the treachery of the dynatoi which led the empire to rapidly disintegrate again at the moment of it's triumph in the 1260s. God has cursed the empire until its’ rightful rulers are reinstalled. God obviously favoured the Lascarids, how else would they rising up again after the treachery of the Dynatoi and regain lands lost by the empire many centuries ago like a phoenix?
Last edited:
This is the only way justice can be brought for what happened in 1261!
Retroactively deem Alexandros I, Ioannes I, Theodore I etc the true emperors of the period.
On that note, they could retroactively claim John IV to have been the legitimate Emperor of the Romans until his death in 1305 and declare he was illegally usurped!
Besides from the already mentioned that may be advantages of the current and still fairly recent situation? Alexandros currently and even more if at the war's end, at very least Crete, would be 'liberated'/incorporated...
It's worth to be noted that he actually enjoys all the advantages from ruling most of the non Anatolian ERE territories. Without having to deal with both the constaneapolitan aristocracy and population. So, as with any of the military, political, diplomatic, religious, and financial troubles that due to the symbolism associated will be probable to arise. Without mention that even many of his subjects would expect that he would move and reside in Constantinople and that either if he would do it and move there or not, both options would bring him, many unnecessary problems.
Perhaps, he may want to break with the Roman/Byzantine precedent and not get his ancestors throne back through a bloodbath wiping out all of them...
At this point in time, Constantinople was a city of around 50k. What was left of the dynatoi had power restricted to a few towns in Thrace. It is perfectly within Alexandros’ power to treat Constantinople the way Constantine himself treated Rome. Vast majority of the Lascarid territories have been ruled by Syracuse for so long that whatever protests a few rabble from Constantinople had no meaning in the rest of the Lascarid territories.Fundementally, most of the Sicilian elite came from such a different political cultural background that even if a random dynatoi were to be declared Basileus by the rabble, the rest of the powerbrokers across the Lascarid realm would only think WHO THE FUCK is this lowborn peasant scum pretending to be Basileus in this mid level border city?Who are these peasant scum in this border city to tell us who the true basileus is?
Last edited:
One against the Cretan rebels and anyone supporting them technically... which actually is what he did in OTL. That TTL there is someone actually supporting the Cretans... why that's a different matter.
I wouldn't place bets he was winning. True Visconti was defeated in the battle of Solara. Within 8 days he had already replaced the defeated army and was back to besieging Modena. Not the actions of a state actually losing a war. So the real argument is did Urban V agree to peace with Milan, a highly favorable one at that just to open the road for Peter's crusade, into which Milan was not participating, or because despite Solara he was actually losing the fight? I'm inclined towards the second.
Not entirely clear when Peter was back to Cyprus in OTL, I understand early 1365, but Peter did tour Europe. With markedly less success in Eastern Europe since Louis cared more about his Venetian war but that's a different matter. That said the cynic in me thinks 4th crusade. I fairly doubt it matters much to French knights going on crusade whether they will be looting Greeks or Egyptians as long as they are looting someone.
I am gonna bet that Alexandros Is gonna look at all those foreign knights besieging Rhodes and see them as money instead of human.If their fleet is destroyed, they are all effectively prisoners.Lots of ransom.
Last edited: