The eagle's left head

b)Did they or did they not? They did not proclaim themselves 'Emperor', we covered that in another post. Why should Louis I. of Hungary fight them, indeed? His vasalls govern a good part of Greece and the Aegean in his name
The Lascarids no longer even play lip service to Angevin overlords, Louis has no vassals in Greece or the Aegean.
 
Syracuse, June 5th, 1357

Alexandros II despot of Sicily and Hellas had initially been taken aback from the news from Constantinople. From the reports he had received Leo Kalothetos had behaved... less than diplomatically. But this didn't mean he could afford the joke playing at being basileus of the Romans treating his envoys this way or thinking he could give him orders. After all his grandfather had more rights to the purple. He and his father had not pursued them for the good of the empire and that what he what his family was getting in return? Something had to be done and this properly viewed was as much an opportunity as a problem. He would not claim the purple outright, his mother was right to advise this was liable to cause more trouble than it was worth at the moment. Taking a page from Stefan Dusan, instead Alexandros was crowned on the day of the pentecost basileus of Sicily and Hellas by the archbishop of Syracuse, with the imperial crown jewels pawned by Anna of Savoy to Alexandros uncle, used for the coronation...
Did they or did they not? They did not proclaim themselves 'Emperor', we covered that in another post. Why should Louis I. of Hungary fight them, indeed? His vasalls govern a good part of Greece and the Aegean in his name
I'm just gonna leave this here...
 
The Lascarids no longer even play lip service to Angevin overlords, Louis has no vassals in Greece or the Aegean.
Again, my question: Did they ever renounce their duties?

Sorry. There is one. The former dukedom of Achaia. And there we again come to the question: Did they ever renounce these title?
 
a) How about a look into a map to see how Hainaut is neighbouring Flanders, which was a pretty important focus of english politics back then?
And what DID the marriage ACTUALLY bring? Don't just point at the map. Did it bring strong armies to help Edward III win the Hundred Years' War? Nope. Did it actually bring any favourable commercial treaties? Nope.
And I am only going from what Lascaris has written until know. There never was a hint(but also no need) of Navarra serving as focal point of lascarid politics by establish a second front in the west in the case of a new Aragonese agression. And Theodor II.´s only connection with the early years of his forefathers is through his grandmother. The rebellish, byzantine foundations are getting washed out and Theodore II. will have a much more 'western' point of view
Most marriages don't bring anything. Unlike Philippa of Hainaut, this marriage at the very least shores up legitimacy in the views of the Latins. Blanche is a literal princess. Whatever you say about Navarre, it's a recognized kingdom where the kings and queens are anointed. So they are getting prestigious goods. Blanche's older sister is the Queen of Aragon for instance, so other royalty are gonna see the Lascarids as actual royalty.
b)Did they or did they not? They did not proclaim themselves 'Emperor', we covered that in another post. Why should Louis I. of Hungary fight them, indeed?
We covered it and everyone agreed that you are barking at the wrong tree.
His vasalls govern a good part of Greece and the Aegean in his name
Who?!
 
'Basileus', eh? Hm, wait a moment, let me for a moment look for a moment what it means. Basileus...eh, ...King!
Does Basileus not mean emperour?
This is what @Lascaris said a few pages back :
Well if you want to get technical Heraclius picked up the title after smashing up the Sassanids because it was ABOVE imperator/autokrator in Greek and the Persians couldn't any more challenge who was top dog in the world and reserved the title. For added fun of course it simultaneously meant king. Which Byzantines for western kings usually called rigas, for the Latin Rex to avoid the trouble.

Again, my question: Did they ever renounce their duties?

Sorry. There is one. The former dukedom of Achaia. And there we again come to the question: Did they ever renounce these title?
Achaia was a Principality, Athens a Duchy. But the answer is the same

The Lascarid ceased paying lip service when Charles III attacked in 1344, and as far as Syracuse is concerned, Angevin claims over any part of the Lascarid realms is void.
They did not, as Louis of Taranto only signed a ten year truce with Theodore in 1353. But between his death and the continued war with Hungarians, there has not been any occasion for wartorn Naples to actually resume the war, even with the War of St Titus, so I guess the truce is de facto renewed on an adhoc basis. But that can only go so far without normalizing the relations with Syracuse. As Lascaris pointed in his answer, the mainland Italian provinces of the Lascarid Empire have on their own alone a larger population than wartorn Naples.
And I remember the Sicilians seized Ischia back in 1350, but I could not remember them losing it or withdrawing before or even after the Truce of 1353, and I surmise they'd have kept it as a guarantee in case Louis got the idea of reneging on his word, so they'd still be in possession of Ischia now; of course, it may be that a Sicilian withdrawal was not worth a mention in the timeline.
 
Could anyone describe to me roughly what the Siclians have, just so I can make a map?

Also, given that they are using Besilius, why have they stopped using emperour and its equivalents?
 
I concur with you that it, at this moment, it may seem unlikely. But, even if, IMO, the Syracuse Despotate/S-Hellas Basilicata expansion path appears to resemble the one of the early Roman Republic.
But even taking into account that, the fact is that, (IMO, again) twenty years ago, few if any of their contemporaneous, would have had have been able to predict any of TTL recent developments... So, who knows what would happen in the years that left until the end of the Century
I think consolidating the lands that they recently conquered would be a good thing, especially since the Empire is shifting Eastwards with the sudden addition of so much land. The thalassocracy of Syracuse would have to shift quite a bit to accommodate it.

I hope in the future as the empire shifts its focus back west that it'd be able to conquer Naples and claim it as part of their realms too. One thing about the Lascarid state is that it is very much a mix of east and west with how the emperor has a lot of power, but the parliament also has some teeth, and can move against the ruler if need be.
I still tend to believe that TTL Timur's invasion of the M. East and entering to Anatolia, would be improbable to follow or to resemble very closely his OTL path and/or that it, if not butterflied, that it would be triggered in the same way than OTL...
Timur's justification of wanting to rebuild the Seljuk empire under his thumb will be used ittl, and with or without the Ottomans he will conquer and rearrange states, which would be to the advantage of the Lascarids as the sea would protect them from Timur.
Even if Timur doesn't show up, this is a massive departure from OTL; the main strength of the early Ottoman state came from its European possessions, where the wars with the Christians attracted warriors, and brought plunder and political prestige, not its relatively limited Anatolian ones. If TTL Ottomans are limited to the eastern Balkans, and under constant pressure from the Lascarids (and likely Hungary as well, with rump Serbia vassalized by either or both), that is a major handicap. Especially as the Ottomans won't find it as easy to ship their troops back and forth from Europe to Anatolia ITTL as they did IOTL with the Lascarid navy facing them. IMS, the Ottomans did not really become masters of western and central Anatolia until the reign of Bayezid I, which will take place in completely different circumstances ITTL.
Yeah I don't think the Ottomans would be particularly big if the Lascarids and Hungarians pressure them that much, and even though they may still conquer Anatolia before Timur I have my doubts that the map in Anatolia would be as per otl. A weaker Ottoman state means they probably don't go on their invasive spree in Anatolia too.

tbf I'm interested in how the mainland holdings of the Lascarids hold in the face of Timur.
 
I hope in the future as the empire shifts its focus back west that it'd be able to conquer Naples and claim it as part of their realms too.
Wouldn't it mean a war with Hungary?
One thing about the Lascarid state is that it is very much a mix of east and west with how the emperor has a lot of power, but the parliament also has some teeth, and can move against the ruler if need be.
Agree, and that also, is one of their strengths.

tbf I'm interested in how the mainland holdings of the Lascarids hold in the face of Timur.
Which ones? I'd asume that Phocaea. Cause , the ones in the Balkans, would require that Timur would be able to cross to Europe... Or perhaps to an eventual, Lascarid/Vatastez Chipre?
Timur's justification of wanting to rebuild the Seljuk empire under his thumb will be used ittl, and with or without the Ottomans he will conquer and rearrange states, which would be to the advantage of the Lascarids as the sea would protect them from Timur.
Indeed, but it sill be a quite different scenario. if hypothetically. and weakened Ottoman sultanate or a no so strong, either submit/accept vassalage to Timur and/or request help/entice him to help them to save/recuperate their European holdings... Or even if TTL Ankara battle /which may taken place elsewhere in Anatolia, perhaps) Timur would be allied with the Ottomans facing a S-Hellas lead coalition that might be including to the Karamanids...
 
Wouldn't it mean a war with Hungary?
Not really. Louis gave Naples away to a distant relative. Eventually, the Hungarians wouldn't care about what happens in said kingdom.

D

'Basileus', eh? Hm, wait a moment, let me for a moment look for a moment what it means. Basileus...eh, ...King!
Brilliant summary. Somehow the rulers of the Roman Empire became mere kings after Heraclius. BRILLIANT! I would presume that you are a PHD holder of East Roman History? What's next? The Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire was neither Roman nor an Empire but just the Kingdom of the Greeks?
Funny thing, getting a step up in the hierarchy, yet staying very well within the realities of feudalism. Th kingdoms of Naples and Sicily paying both fealty to Hungary
Where does it say that Sicily is paying fealty to Hungary?Source? First, you claim that Hungary has a Mediterranean vassal and now you state that the Lascarid Empire is a vassal state?

Are you making some kind of fanfiction elsewhere? Please post so that we can all have a look.
 
Last edited:
Brilliant summary. Somehow the rulers of the Roman Empire became mere kings after Heraclius. BRILLIANT! I would presume that you are a PHD holder of East Roman History? What's next? The Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire was neither Roman nor an Empire but just the Kingdom of the Greeks?
Where does it say that Sicily is paying fealty to Hungary?Source? First, you claim that Hungary has a Mediterranean vassal and now you state that the Lascarid Empire is a vassal state?

Are you making some kind of fanfiction elsewhere? Please post so that we can all have a look.
And your point is?
Hardly a reason to be disrespectful anyway.
 
Warning
And your point is?
Hardly a reason to be disrespectful anyway.
And your point is? Somehow it’s disrespectful to point out facts to someone who is obviously wrong and kept on making things up to criticise the story despite the whole thread pointing out where he was wrong REPEATEDLY ?This isn’t the first time this fellow has been making claims like Basileus only meant king, Blanche was a useless woman, and that the Lascarid Empire is a vassal state of Hungary. If I was being disrespectful, I could have written my reply in an entirely different manner.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it mean a war with Hungary?
Agree, and that also, is one of their strengths.


Which ones? I'd asume that Phocaea. Cause , the ones in the Balkans, would require that Timur would be able to cross to Europe... Or perhaps to an eventual, Lascarid/Vatastez Chipre?
Indeed, but it sill be a quite different scenario. if hypothetically. and weakened Ottoman sultanate or a no so strong, either submit/accept vassalage to Timur and/or request help/entice him to help them to save/recuperate their European holdings... Or even if TTL Ankara battle /which may taken place elsewhere in Anatolia, perhaps) Timur would be allied with the Ottomans facing a S-Hellas lead coalition that might be including to the Karamanids...
Timur would still have to force a crossing of the Dardanelles with no fleet of his own while being opposed by the strongest naval power in the Eastern Mediterranean. How is he going to do that ?
 
Timur would still have to force a crossing of the Dardanelles with no fleet of his own while being opposed by the strongest naval power in the Eastern Mediterranean. How is he going to do that ?
Amass a ton of cannons in the Dardanelles and a lot of transports and just force the Straits. Same can be applied to Bosporus. Ships can't get close to big cannon concentrations as we saw in Chalcis Strait ITTL. It's not easy cause then the Laskarid army could take a position but if done quickly enough they could cross. Now on the supply sitiutation is a whole other story.
 
Amass a ton of cannons in the Dardanelles and a lot of transports and just force the Straits. Same can be applied to Bosporus. Ships can't get close to big cannon concentrations as we saw in Chalcis Strait ITTL. It's not easy cause then the Laskarid army could take a position but if done quickly enough they could cross. Now on the supply sitiutation is a whole other story.
There is the difference of distance between the 2 cases that makes them completely incompatible to any comparison. The narrowest part of the Dardanelles is a bit over a kilometer. Far larger than the range of a cannon of that era. In comparison , Chalkis is less than 100 meters from mainland Greece...
 
Wouldn't it mean a war with Hungary?
Depends on when and how they invade. After the death of Charles iv (iii in otl) I think they won't care after Charles iv is dead as the Hungarian state weakens and the Aragonese eventually take over as per otl.
Which ones? I'd asume that Phocaea. Cause , the ones in the Balkans, would require that Timur would be able to cross to Europe... Or perhaps to an eventual, Lascarid/Vatastez Chipre
ye Phocaea.
Indeed, but it sill be a quite different scenario. if hypothetically. and weakened Ottoman sultanate or a no so strong, either submit/accept vassalage to Timur and/or request help/entice him to help them to save/recuperate their European holdings... Or even if TTL Ankara battle /which may taken place elsewhere in Anatolia, perhaps) Timur would be allied with the Ottomans facing a S-Hellas lead coalition that might be including to the Karamanids...
That is very much a possibility, but no matter what it still means that the Anatolian Beyliks are weakened and shattered at the end, and if the Sicilians were waiting for the Timurs to weaken so they can conquer Anatolia it will to be their advantage.
 
Wouldn't it mean a war with Hungary?
Agree, and that also, is one of their strengths.


Which ones? I'd asume that Phocaea. Cause , the ones in the Balkans, would require that Timur would be able to cross to Europe... Or perhaps to an eventual, Lascarid/Vatastez Chipre?
Indeed, but it sill be a quite different scenario. if hypothetically. and weakened Ottoman sultanate or a no so strong, either submit/accept vassalage to Timur and/or request help/entice him to help them to save/recuperate their European holdings... Or even if TTL Ankara battle /which may taken place elsewhere in Anatolia, perhaps) Timur would be allied with the Ottomans facing a S-Hellas lead coalition that might be including to the Karamanids...
Depends on when and how they invade. After the death of Charles iv (iii in otl) I think they won't care after Charles iv is dead as the Hungarian state weakens and the Aragonese eventually take over as per otl.

ye Phocaea.

That is very much a possibility, but no matter what it still means that the Anatolian Beyliks are weakened and shattered at the end, and if the Sicilians were waiting for the Timurs to weaken so they can conquer Anatolia it will to be their advantage.
Phocaea should be easily defended. Place is on a peninsula and could be supplied freely from the sea.
 
And your point is? Somehow it’s disrespectful to point out facts to someone who is obviously wrong and kept on making things up to criticise the story despite the whole thread pointing out where he was wrong REPEATEDLY ?This isn’t the first time this fellow has been making claims like Basileus only meant king, Blanche was a useless woman, and that the Lascarid Empire is a vassal state of Hungary. If I was being disrespectful, I could have written my reply in an entirely different manner.
Please do not be so rude to other posters.
 
Top