When Was The Latest Point The Byzantines Could Be Saved?

To both of these, the same muscle that enabled them to expand into Achea and Attica in the 1420s and 302s OTL (though Attica proved ephemeral thanks to Ottoman intervention).

So very little.

Honestly, I've never seen decent estimates for what forces the Despotate of Morea had in this period, but as to why they were not at the siege of Constantinople, it was because Mehmed II controlled all the land between Morea and Constantinople and sent forces to prevent the Moreans from reenforcing the capital, which they were attempting to do, with apparrently enough men to warrent Mehmed dealing with them despite the factthathedid not want to conquer the region at the time.
Why would it have that effect?
Why would what have what effect?

And maybe it's just me, but if I was in Constantine XI's shoes, and I had men that could be spared from Morea, I would bring them with me to prepare for trouble instead of waiting until the siege had started.

I don't understand your point here. I'm suggesting that if for some reason, take your pick because there are many, Greece was more populous at the time, they may have been able to cause more problems for the Ottomans with regards to holding them down, and thus allowed more expansion opportunities for Byzantium. I could see how you could disagree and say that it would not make a difference, but not acceptable AH I really don't get, nor do I understand why you don't consider it an attempt to find a reasonable way for Byzantium to recover post 1400.
To make an analogy.
The question seems to be - to me at least - "At what point did the Byzantines reach the point of no return?"

And scenarios like the utter Ottomanscrew Daztur mentions or what you seem to be going for verge on "Well, if they were flying a different plane with bigger fuel tanks . . ." type answers.

Or to use another analogy: "How far off would the iceberg have to be for the Titanic to turn in time?" getting answered with "Well, if the Titanic was made of super reinforced materials so it could hit it head on . . ."
 
Last edited:
So very little.

Precisely. Places like the Duchy of Athens and the later reincarnated despotate of Epirus were even weaker than Byzantium, and the Ottomans recognized this and protected theese smaller weaker states from Byzantine reconquest expeditions whenever possible. The fact that Manuel II chose to pursue Thessalonica instead of these weak places closer to his base of power should be seen as a critical oversight on his part IMO, because while on paper Thessalonica is a wealthy city of 100,000 compared to Athens at 20,000, the latter can be held, and the former cannot.

Why would what have what effect?

And maybe it's just me, but if I was in Constantine XI's shoes, and I had men that could be spared from Morea, I would bring them with me to prepare for trouble instead of waiting until the siege had started.

A mistake in judgement on Constantine XI's part. He initially hoped to benefit from what he saw as a weak young ruler in Mehmed II, only to find that Mehmed's coping strategy was to prove that he was not weak by conquering Constantinople. By the time that Mehmed's intentions were known, he had already made bringing troops in from Morea impossible without Italian aid, which obviously didn't come.

To make an analogy.
The question seems to be - to me at least - "At what point did the Byzantines reach the point of no return?"

And scenarios like the utter Ottomanscrew Daztur mentions or what you seem to be going for verge on "Well, if they were flying a different plane with bigger fuel tanks . . ." type answers.

Or to use another analogy: "How far off would the iceberg have to be for the Titanic to turn in time?" getting answered with "Well, if the Titanic was made of super reinforced materials so it could hit it head on . . ."

I see. No, I am proposing that Byzantium might be able to survive from later more reasonably with a demographic PoD rather than a political one. As you have made quite clear, their demographics are among the worst of their problems at this time, and they were sitting well below carrying capacity. The only way for the Byzantines to survive is to have an advantage over what they had OTL, so I am looking into what advantages that they did not have OTL were plausible for them to have gained. The Titanic thing is more akin to saying, "What if the Byzantines simply couldn't be beaten." I suppose that you have a different concept of point of no return, because I see any return that has a comperable OTL situation as qualifying for not beyond the point of no return.

I'm curious, how is a nation beating its larger rival by having the right combination of advantages at the right time wrong to you? You seem to be unwilling to consider the possibility that Byzantium was not utterly doomed by 1350 without the use of ASBs. If 1204 could happen to them, in a position not disimilar to the Ottoman one in the 1400s, I would not say that the Ottomans collapsing in the same way is unreasonable. It would be convenient for the Byzantines, but so was the fourth crusade for the Ottomans and Bulgarians. Neither the Ottomans nor the Bulgarians then could have brought Byzantium down, but when a very fortuitous event brought them down, they still made big gains.
 
Precisely. Places like the Duchy of Athens and the later reincarnated despotate of Epirus were even weaker than Byzantium, and the Ottomans recognized this and protected theese smaller weaker states from Byzantine reconquest expeditions whenever possible. The fact that Manuel II chose to pursue Thessalonica instead of these weak places closer to his base of power should be seen as a critical oversight on his part IMO, because while on paper Thessalonica is a wealthy city of 100,000 compared to Athens at 20,000, the latter can be held, and the former cannot.

But if Thessalonica is so darn valuable and populated, it should be possible to hold with its own resources, at least in part.

A mistake in judgement on Constantine XI's part. He initially hoped to benefit from what he saw as a weak young ruler in Mehmed II, only to find that Mehmed's coping strategy was to prove that he was not weak by conquering Constantinople. By the time that Mehmed's intentions were known, he had already made bringing troops in from Morea impossible without Italian aid, which obviously didn't come.

Fair enough.

I see. No, I am proposing that Byzantium might be able to survive from later more reasonably with a demographic PoD rather than a political one. As you have made quite clear, their demographics are among the worst of their problems at this time, and they were sitting well below carrying capacity. The only way for the Byzantines to survive is to have an advantage over what they had OTL, so I am looking into what advantages that they did not have OTL were plausible for them to have gained. The Titanic thing is more akin to saying, "What if the Byzantines simply couldn't be beaten." I suppose that you have a different concept of point of no return, because I see any return that has a comperable OTL situation as qualifying for not beyond the point of no return.

The problem is that having something where - for instance - we have a less devastating Latin Empire or Black Plague - means that we don't have the same situation as OTL. And "what advantages that they did not have OTL could they have gained" . . .

I'm possibly phrasing this awkwardly, but here's the thing to me.

It's all well and good to explore "what if X had happened differently?" with X being one of those things. There can never be too many Byzantine threads.

But it's irrelevant to the question of 'When was the last point that the resources Byzantium had were enough?" to answer that if Byzantium had more resources in 1400 than 1400 wouldn't be too late.

Question: "Whats' the fast a man on foot can go?"
You (as I see it, and I'm just stating what I'm perceiving): "20 mph if he's on horseback."

That analogy work better?

I'm curious, how is a nation beating its larger rival by having the right combination of advantages at the right time wrong to you? You seem to be unwilling to consider the possibility that Byzantium was not utterly doomed by 1350 without the use of ASBs. If 1204 could happen to them, in a position not disimilar to the Ottoman one in the 1400s, I would not say that the Ottomans collapsing in the same way is unreasonable. It would be convenient for the Byzantines, but so was the fourth crusade for the Ottomans and Bulgarians. Neither the Ottomans nor the Bulgarians then could have brought Byzantium down, but when a very fortuitous event brought them down, they still made big gains.

I would say that saying that (underlined) needs . . . well, different people than the OTL sons of Bayezid, for starters.

And at this point, you're not exploring the OTL situation, you're trying to find a way to make a different situation for Manuel in the first place.

So it's not that beating a larger rival is wrong, it's the efforts to make a situation where that's workable take us beyond the point of "what could be done with the OTL situation" and towards "how can we avoid the OTL situation to begin with".
 
But if Thessalonica is so darn valuable and populated, it should be possible to hold with its own resources, at least in part.

You'd think so, but even though it could be argued quite well that Constantinople was less valuable in this era because of all of its misfortunes, what it represented caused anything that Thessalonica produced to be used to help defend Constantinople, just like how Ireland under Britan could feed the English but not themselves. The situation would probable also have gone better if Thessalonica came with a decent sized hinterland, because without that they can't even expect to feed themselves in times of war. That, IMO, is the difference between holding Thessalonica and the Morea.


The problem is that having something where - for instance - we have a less devastating Latin Empire or Black Plague - means that we don't have the same situation as OTL. And "what advantages that they did not have OTL could they have gained" . . .

I'm possibly phrasing this awkwardly, but here's the thing to me.

It's all well and good to explore "what if X had happened differently?" with X being one of those things. There can never be too many Byzantine threads.

But it's irrelevant to the question of 'When was the last point that the resources Byzantium had were enough?" to answer that if Byzantium had more resources in 1400 than 1400 wouldn't be too late.

Question: "Whats' the fast a man on foot can go?"
You (as I see it, and I'm just stating what I'm perceiving): "20 mph if he's on horseback."

That analogy work better?
I think I understand a part of the confusion (I think). I'm proposing not that the initial situation is altered, but that, with a PoD sometime post 1400, the population picks up in a meaningful way that effects the situation significantly before the OTL fall of Constantinople can take place. So, I think the difference in the analogy is, "Xmph, if he trains himself up a bit first". It is essentially, what if a population boom occurred among the Greeks in 1410, perhaps due to a period of good harvests both in the lands under Byzantine and under Ottoman control.



I would say that saying that (underlined) needs . . . well, different people than the OTL sons of Bayezid, for starters.

And at this point, you're not exploring the OTL situation, you're trying to find a way to make a different situation for Manuel in the first place.

So it's not that beating a larger rival is wrong, it's the efforts to make a situation where that's workable take us beyond the point of "what could be done with the OTL situation" and towards "how can we avoid the OTL situation to begin with".

I don't know quite enough about Bayezids sons to judge, but with regards to changing the situation, as I've said my plan would be to have a large foreign intervention at the same time as one of the civil wars. Since there was an abundance of Ottoman civil wars and internal issues in this period, and an abundance of foreign intervention in the form of the many crusades, I don't think that it requires going too far outside of the situation to ask "What if a Crusade and a civil war happened at the same time". Some of the crusades did actually come close to achieving something, and against a fractured Ottoman Empire it should be a very managable task to drive them out of some portion of Europe.

All that said, I'm beginning to wonder if there is any room for what if Manuel II foregoes Thessalonica and instead attempts to take Athens and Epirus during the Ottoman civil war, maybe even gaining as far north as Larissa if he's lucky and can cut a nice deal with one of the civil war factions. That could be far more useful than Thessalonica if it can be kept in line, though it woud realy depend on weather the Italians can be pursuaded or distracted into allowing this growth to go unchallenged.
 
If we're going to stay out of 'very implausible' territory, I would say the early 1320s. If the Andronikan civil wars can be avoided and Stephen Dusan butterflied, with good luck and leadership the Empire could recover to the point of controlling most of modern Greece and European Turkey, which should be enough to throw out any Turkish invasions (although raids would undoubtedly be a problem). I'm thinking of making a TL about this idea, as an exploration of the last possible point of Byzantium being a regional power to mirror Age of Miracle's last possible point of Byzantium being a major/great power.
 
If we're going to stay out of 'very implausible' territory, I would say the early 1320s. If the Andronikan civil wars can be avoided and Stephen Dusan butterflied, with good luck and leadership the Empire could recover to the point of controlling most of modern Greece and European Turkey, which should be enough to throw out any Turkish invasions (although raids would undoubtedly be a problem). I'm thinking of making a TL about this idea, as an exploration of the last possible point of Byzantium being a regional power to mirror Age of Miracle's last possible point of Byzantium being a major/great power.

So the Byzantines throwing off the Ottomans when they are laying siege to Constantinople in the 1450's is ASB?
 
So the Byzantines throwing off the Ottomans when they are laying siege to Constantinople in the 1450's is ASB?

Repulsing the 1453 siege isn't ASB. But that's not enough. By that point Byzantium is walking dead. If it revives, it'd be from riding the coattails of somebody else with the updraft from a massive Ottoman-screw. I don't consider Avitus' TL to be ASB (but then I consider very few things to be ASB, there are just things that require a lot more tweaking of history to happen), but for every reality where a 1450s Byzantium manages to not die, there are probably about five million where it does.
 
Repulsing the 1453 siege isn't ASB. But that's not enough. By that point Byzantium is walking dead. If it revives, it'd be from riding the coattails of somebody else with the updraft from a massive Ottoman-screw. I don't consider Avitus' TL to be ASB (but then I consider very few things to be ASB, there are just things that require a lot more tweaking of history to happen), but for every reality where a 1450s Byzantium manages to not die, there are probably about five million where it does.

And saying "But there's one possible reality where it does, so it's feasible!" is missing the point.
 
And saying "But there's one possible reality where it does, so it's feasible!" is missing the point.
Only if that is all that you say. If you can detail the path of events leading to that outcome, I'd say its worth exploring. Just beacuse it is unlikely doesn't mean it is uninteresting so long as it makes sense, at least in my opinion.
 
Only if that is all that you say. If you can detail the path of events leading to that outcome, I'd say its worth exploring. Just beacuse it is unlikely doesn't mean it is uninteresting so long as it makes sense, at least in my opinion.

This is interesting, and makes sense, but it's still ASB: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?209106-The-Fallen-Eagle-A-Byzantine-Empire-AAR

Not saying you're going that far, I'm just saying that "interesting and makes sense" aren't enough outside ASB.
 
The latest the ERE can be saved is any point before the birth of John VI. That last civil war was the straw that broke the camel's back.
 
I'm gonna take this opportunity to shamelessly promote my TL in progress about exactly that. When is the PoD? 1449:D Judge for yourself whether their survival is ASB byclicking the link in my sig.

Not bad Avitus,not bad at all...!
 
To both of these, the same muscle that enabled them to expand into Achea and Attica in the 1420s and 302s OTL (though Attica proved ephemeral thanks to Ottoman intervention).



Honestly, I've never seen decent estimates for what forces the Despotate of Morea had in this period, but as to why they were not at the siege of Constantinople, it was because Mehmed II controlled all the land between Morea and Constantinople and sent forces to prevent the Moreans from reenforcing the capital, which they were attempting to do, with apparrently enough men to warrent Mehmed dealing with them despite the factthathedid not want to conquer the region at the time.
Why would it have that effect?



I don't understand your point here. I'm suggesting that if for some reason, take your pick because there are many, Greece was more populous at the time, they may have been able to cause more problems for the Ottomans with regards to holding them down, and thus allowed more expansion opportunities for Byzantium. I could see how you could disagree and say that it would not make a difference, but not acceptable AH I really don't get, nor do I understand why you don't consider it an attempt to find a reasonable way for Byzantium to recover post 1400.

Avitus,
Look at it the other way round:the existence and expansion of the Ottomans was one of the greatest ASB history conspired and invented OTL;it was like the hand of the devil protected the Ottomans;it so happens that every Ottoman neighbour was ripe for the taking or there was no reaction worth speaking of,at the time the Ottomans were ready for a leap.Timur was unwilling to stay a bit longer in Anatolia,the 100 years war finished in 1453;it could have finished in 1452 and you would have an avalance of seasoned and battle hardened warriors ready and unemployed to answer pope's call for an eastern crusade as you put in your thread(or near that).
Just to take a measure of Ottoman weakness despite their numbers look at the sea battle of the 20th of April 1453 when Flandanellas with four ships(one of them a dromon) fought successfully the entire day against Ottomans with Greek and Genoese sailors not with manoevres but like a land battle,hand to hand combat on ships grapled and a contimued slaughter of Ottomans,until the evening that those ships entered Keratios
creek and the port of Constantinople...
What five thousand men from Peloponnese could do?under Graitzas? quite a lot since he had proved it against western knights in Achaea!
 
I believe all after the Battle of Manzikertwas a steep decline despite short bursts of recovery. Manzikert won would break the islamic encroachment (at least for some time)
 
I believe all after the Battle of Manzikertwas a steep decline despite short bursts of recovery. Manzikert won would break the islamic encroachment (at least for some time)

Sort of, but not quite. Islamic encroachment had begun some years before Manzikert, and Byzantine garrisons would continue to occupy strategic positions across Anatolia for some years afterward- Iconium, for example, only fell in 1084. Turkomans had been a problem in the East from the 1040s onward, but competently led imperial armies under Katakalon Kevkamenos and Isaac Komnenos (amongst others) were able to fight a fairly effective rearguard action for quite a while.

Trouble is that I'd argue by the middle of the 1060s, a Manzikert-like battle is becoming ever more likely, with the Turkomans being pushed by the Seljuk Turks in ever greater numbers away from Mesopotamia and into Anatolia. And the armies of eleventh century Byzantium, which had done the Empire very well for continuous campaigning under Basil II weren't really able to get to grips with the Turkoman style of warfare. In IE 2, I handwave this somewhat by having fighting the Fatimids and scrabbling for spoils in the Levant absorb much of this energy that was IOTL directed into Anatolia, but the bottom line is that if the Seljuks want to dominate Mesopotamia and Iran, their unruly Turkoman cousins have to go somewhere.
 
Top