Unification of the Byzantine successor states

I forgot how much of a nuisance Alexios III was, even after he lost the throne. The Angeloi were a mistake.

Kill all Angeloi!!!

But in all seriousness, I wouldn't exactly call the Palaiologoi a worthless dynasty, it ain't exactly a Empire saver, but it wasn't complete dog crap...well, at least not the early period, and is far better than the Angeloi by a country mile, but that's just semantics now...

In any case, Magnum is right. With a 1204 PoD, a united Byzantium can be forged in a myriad of ways, with a myriad of dynasties, be it the Angeloi, Palaiologoi, Kantakouzenoi, Laskari (from OTL), or those who never held the diadem, such as the Philanthropenoi or the Nemanjic (What would be a Hellenized form of that name?)

By the way, the Komnenos Doukas is just an Angeloi by any other name.
 
But in all seriousness, I wouldn't exactly call the Palaiologoi a worthless dynasty, it ain't exactly a Empire saver, but it wasn't complete dog crap...well, at least not the early period, and is far better than the Angeloi by a country mile, but that's just semantics now...

In any case, Magnum is right. With a 1204 PoD, a united Byzantium can be forged in a myriad of ways, with a myriad of dynasties, be it the Angeloi, Palaiologoi, Kantakouzenoi, Laskari (from OTL), or those who never held the diadem, such as the Philanthropenoi or the Nemanjic (What would be a Hellenized form of that name?)

By the way, the Komnenos Doukas is just an Angeloi by any other name.
Don't forget the Second Bulgarian Empire. It seems they had as much of a chance as the Nicaeans or Epirotes.
 
Honestly, I think it'd be interesting if they agreed to a three-way Co-Emperorship. Nicaea would have authority over the Anatolian Highlands, and the coast south of Constantinople (with a bit of the northern coastal environs), Epirus would essentially have authority over the European territories, and Trebizon having authority over their territories, the Black Sea Coast, and the Caucuses.

I reckon that if you could arrange that, with a pattern of marriages between the three families, you could eventually bring the number of Co-Emperors down naturally, but the main advantage is that all three parties want to maintain that balance of power, so the Laskarids may well never be overthrown by the Palialogoi.

It also raises the potential for co-operation (yay, less wasted effort on each other), but also the development of divergent military setups (Say Georgia enters the control of the Empire, then making pushes into Circassia and establishing a presence in the Steppe in the wake of the Mongols may lead to a larger concentration of light cavalry in Trebizond).

As long as you have no "Senior" Emperor (although with Constantinople under their control, I reckon the Laskarids may defacto get that position), and three branches, you've got a natural balance with needing two Emperors to agree to any action that isn't within an Emperors own territory.
 
Would be an interesting premise, essentially a return to the multi-emperor rule that existed with the Roman Empire (before the codification of West and East Empires). On one hand, it does raise the potential for co-operation, on the other hand I think the prestige of Constaninople and of a united Roman Emperor would probably keep the Emperors of Epirus and Trebizond centered on toppling the dude on that throne.
 
Would be an interesting premise, essentially a return to the multi-emperor rule that existed with the Roman Empire (before the codification of West and East Empires). On one hand, it does raise the potential for co-operation, on the other hand I think the prestige of Constaninople and of a united Roman Emperor would probably keep the Emperors of Epirus and Trebizond centered on toppling the dude on that throne.

Certainly. I mean, it is totally plausible.

I'd expect however that even if they tried to balance the efforts spent on campaigning to maintain their strong power bases, a recaptured Anatolia and Constantinople (between them no less) is likely to be the strongest - even if exposed to the North and South East by powerful enemies that otherwise aren't threats to Epirus and Trebizond.

It may do wonders for the economies of those outer regions though - Epirus is in a prime position to focus on Venetian power - and well placed to screw them over, perhaps even adopting some of their own practices in the process.
 
Epirus would serve as the primary way to distract Venice and especially Naples, keep someone like Charles of Anjou, or his analogue from coming up with the idea to try and reestablish the Latin Empire (either restoring it to whomever the Emperor is at the time, or and most likely, claiming it for himself.) Expect the Komenoi Doukoi to, instead of focusing his attention on reclaiming Constantinople, Thessaly & Greek Macedonia, could turn his attention to Morea, Achaea, the Isles and...Thessaly.
 
Epirus would serve as the primary way to distract Venice and especially Naples, keep someone like Charles of Anjou, or his analogue from coming up with the idea to try and reestablish the Latin Empire (either restoring it to whomever the Emperor is at the time, or and most likely, claiming it for himself.) Expect the Komenoi Doukoi to, instead of focusing his attention on reclaiming Constantinople, Thessaly & Greek Macedonia, could turn his attention to Morea, Achaea, the Isles and...Thessaly.

Which is ideal with the split I suggested (Frankly, I think Macedonia would be valuable if only for a final stop before Constantinople for Epirus to collect fees from, and as a protected recruitment ground).

Mmmmm, Roman/Epirote Dalmatia. Mmmmm.
 
Epirus would serve as the primary way to distract Venice and especially Naples, keep someone like Charles of Anjou, or his analogue from coming up with the idea to try and reestablish the Latin Empire (either restoring it to whomever the Emperor is at the time, or and most likely, claiming it for himself.) Expect the Komenoi Doukoi to, instead of focusing his attention on reclaiming Constantinople, Thessaly & Greek Macedonia, could turn his attention to Morea, Achaea, the Isles and...Thessaly.
That, or have Charles not succeed in deposing Manfred of Sicily in the first place.
 
No it isn't, Trebizond was a very well fortified city. Even at Trebizond's weakest when it could barely put together a couple thousand troops it was able to repel a seljuk siege.

It was also quite wealthy thanks to the Silk Road.
It's not easy resupplied by an empire lacking a navy.
 
Assuming you have any control over the hinterland at all. It is easy to stockpile supplies, has its own source of water and is practically unassailable in terms of fortifications. The Empire of Trebizond lasted a very long time without any navy to resupply their capital that was of any note or any military worth mentioning for most of its existence. A large part of that was clever diplomacy, but the sheer difficulty of taking the city and the fact that it stood off multiple major sieges without undue difficulty was also a huge part of that.
 
Why would it be the dynastic name? Nemanja was considered the founder and the first Uros was Nemanja's grandson. Note that John Uros was given the surname Nemanjic in the Balkans and Doukas Paleologos by the Greeks.
If you're tryig to be Roman Emperor, you're more apt to embrace Roman styles and conventions.
 
Top