WI: Angevin victory at Berat (1280)

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...nia-persists-remains-joined-to-naples.415943/
A year ago, there was this thread on a successful Angevin Albania after a reverse outcome at the Siege of Berat, and i just wanted to revive the discussion.
So, suppose that Hugh of Sully is successful in taking Berat from the post-Nicaean Byzantines, paving the way for raids and operations in Macedonia.
Does Charles I of Sicily, then stationed in Southern Italy, decide to mount a full-scale invasion of the Byzantine Empire across the Via Egnatia?
Considering the brief unification of the Western and Eastern Churches at the 1274 Council of Lyon, do the Angevins decide to restore the Latin Empire if the war ends in their favour?
What happens to other polities in the Balkans, mainly the Despotate of Epirus, Bulgaria, Serbia, and the Principality of Achaea? Do they take advantage of the situation to grab some chunks of land from the Byzantines while they're occupied with the Angevins?
Does a success at Berat dissuade the sicilians from revolting?
 
Last edited:
Does Charles I of Sicily, then stationed in Southern Italy, decide to mount a full-scale invasion of the Byzantine Empire across the Via Egnatia?
Yes. The attack on Berat was the first stage of such an invasion.
Considering the brief unification of the Western and Eastern Churches at the 1274 Council of Lyon, do the Angevins decide to restore the Latin Empire if the war ends in their favour?
The union of Lyon doesn't matter, because it will be revoked - and very soon. The new Pope, Martin IV, was an Angevin toady; he will dissolve the union and excommunicate the Byzantine Emperor in a few months, just as he did in OTL.

The Angevins would restore the Latin Empire, in accordance with their agreement with the exiled Courtenay dynasty. Philip of Courtenay, the titular Latin Emperor, would become the actual Latin Emperor; but if he doesn't live longer than in OTL, his inheritance is at risk of being transferred to the Angevins.
What happens to other polities in the Balkans, mainly the Despotate of Epirus, Bulgaria, Serbia, and the Principality of Achaea? Do they take advantage of the situation to grab some chunks of land from the Byzantines while they're occupied with the Angevins?

The Despotate of Epirus was an ally and vassal of Charles. Serbia, Bulgaria, and the state of Thessaly were also Angevin allies. The Principality of Achaea no longer existed at this point; it was a possession of the Kingdom of Sicily since 1278.

In other words, they were all part of Charles I's grand alliance and will participate in the seizure of Byzantine lands (and, maybe, in the overthrow of the Byzantine Empire).


Now, would the Sicilian invasion actually succeed in overthrowing Michael Palaiologos and taking Constantinople? I don't know, but I think it's quite possible.

Berat was the key to the Via Egnatia - to Thessaloniki and, from there, to Constantinople. Constantinople was more oriented towards repelling a naval attack at this point in time; it was not so well prepared against a regular land invasion. And Michael VIII's tyrannic imposition of the Church Union created a great deal of strife and internal dissent within the Empire. It was not a very strong or unified state at this point, and a different outcome at Berat could very well be the beginning of the end.

(Michael VIII did have one semi-reliable ally: Nogai and his Tatars. He might use them to paralyze Bulgaria, and prevent it from directly participating in the Angevin coalition. But that might not be enough to save him.)
Does a success at Berat dissuade the sicilians from revolting?

Now, here's the tricky part: it doesn't. Preparations for the Sicilian revolt and Aragonese invasion were already underway by the time of the siege of Berat. And Sicily's relative hostility to Angevin rule remains unchanged.

Some details will be slightly different. Peter of Aragon may receive slightly less money from the Byzantines, and be slightly less well-equipped for it. But there will still probably be a revolt. The Angevins might see Sicily slip from their grasp just as they are successfully overthrowing the Palaiologoi and restoring the Latin Empire.
 
How does this affect the growth of the Turkish Beyliks in Anatolia, in the long run? Would a Second Latin Empire be as committed to defending northwestern Anatolia as the post-Nicaean Byzantine Empire of OTL?
 
I don't know if the restored Latin Empire would even cross into Anatolia tbh. Even if they have some exceptional successes in their campaign, the Sicilian Vespers would come shortly after the capture of Constantinople.
 
Most of the islands and Achaea still recognised the Emperor in exile until the mid 1300s or so. Thus there's no restoration per se as it never really left.
It does tie the Empire to Sicily though and I suspect gets absorbed one side or the other making Sicily(-at-Naples) the power centre and political relations with the HRE very interesting.
Such an empire would probably be even more interested in securing the Adriatic so controlling Venice and Hungary/Croatia would be more important than OTL.
 
Top