WI : Late Byzantine Empire pulled a USA

My understanding is that one of the chronic problems of the late Byzantine Period was its ability to raise an army. However, it is also one of those states that had quite an advanced economy for the period, akin to Italy in some respects, and deeply involved in producing and trading manufactured goods.

This suggests to me that there could (arguably) be a labour shortage as well as a manpower shortage, especially in the wake of the Black Plague.

Could the Late Byzantine Empire have somehow portrayed itself as a land of opportunity - essentially guaranteeing rewards to those who immigrated to the Empire - the plan being to recruit these migrants as members of the Roman Army, and effectively conquer the land to both restore the Empires fortunes, and pay these people with plots of land.

This could apply to individuals, minor lords and their retinues, etc. Effectively part USA part Christian Ghazi.

Admittedly we're going to see Catholic-Orthodox issues, applying pressure to the Unionism conflict in play at the time, but say we do this during the early years of John V Palaiologos, could we see this strengthen the Byzantines enough to see a reversal of their fortunes - even if it meant being a Catholic Byzantine Empire?
 
My understanding is that one of the chronic problems of the late Byzantine Period was its ability to raise an army. However, it is also one of those states that had quite an advanced economy for the period, akin to Italy in some respects, and deeply involved in producing and trading manufactured goods.

This suggests to me that there could (arguably) be a labour shortage as well as a manpower shortage, especially in the wake of the Black Plague.

Could the Late Byzantine Empire have somehow portrayed itself as a land of opportunity - essentially guaranteeing rewards to those who immigrated to the Empire - the plan being to recruit these migrants as members of the Roman Army, and effectively conquer the land to both restore the Empires fortunes, and pay these people with plots of land.

This could apply to individuals, minor lords and their retinues, etc. Effectively part USA part Christian Ghazi.

Admittedly we're going to see Catholic-Orthodox issues, applying pressure to the Unionism conflict in play at the time, but say we do this during the early years of John V Palaiologos, could we see this strengthen the Byzantines enough to see a reversal of their fortunes - even if it meant being a Catholic Byzantine Empire?

Well post 4th crusade the Byzantines were really lost, the Empire of Nicaea retook Constantinople for the prestige in-exchange for the productive and populous Asia Minor territories that was the basis of its power. By sacrificing Asia Minor the late Byzantines became a hallow husk living on borrowed time.

Immigration at the time wasn't really a thing, manpower was power to the lords of the era and most peasants spent their entire lives in their immediate region. There was immigration for skilled workers, but they numbered in the hundreds-a thousand or two and required incentives and privileges that pissed off local guilds and nowhere in the numbers required for an army; it'll be a lot easier to annex the land the peasant was on than to attractive them by word of mouth. The USA, despite all things got most of its growth from native birth rates which unlike the impoverished European peasant wasn't subject to land constraints, constant wars, and heavy taxes. The Byzantine Empire also lacked the good image that the USA had, for the most part news didn't travel to the countryside in this era so even if it did have a good image the peasants wouldn't know about it.
 
The empire did occasionally settle outside people groups in its territory. One very late example was about ten thousand Cumans settled in Thrace in exchange for military service. By all accounts it worked pretty well and within a few generations they had been integrated fully. However large population migrations were still pretty rare and there would have to be significant strife in a neighboring land to trigger something.

One example of a large wave of immigration that hurt the Empire's prospects was a wave of turks from Persia that fled the Mongol conquests. They settled in Anatolia and finally tipped the overall population balance away from the native Greek speaking population and made Turks the majority rather than a warrior elite and ruling class.
 
Well post 4th crusade the Byzantines were really lost, the Empire of Nicaea retook Constantinople for the prestige in-exchange for the productive and populous Asia Minor territories that was the basis of its power. By sacrificing Asia Minor the late Byzantines became a hallow husk living on borrowed time.

Immigration at the time wasn't really a thing, manpower was power to the lords of the era and most peasants spent their entire lives in their immediate region. There was immigration for skilled workers, but they numbered in the hundreds-a thousand or two and required incentives and privileges that pissed off local guilds and nowhere in the numbers required for an army; it'll be a lot easier to annex the land the peasant was on than to attractive them by word of mouth. The USA, despite all things got most of its growth from native birth rates which unlike the impoverished European peasant wasn't subject to land constraints, constant wars, and heavy taxes. The Byzantine Empire also lacked the good image that the USA had, for the most part news didn't travel to the countryside in this era so even if it did have a good image the peasants wouldn't know about it.

Well post 4th Crusade the Byzantines weren't really lost. They still ruled a decent amount of region in Northern Greece and Albania as well as parts of Southern Bulgaria and North-west Anatolia. What we could say is that the 4th Crusade killed them as a great power of Europe.
 
My understanding is that one of the chronic problems of the late Byzantine Period was its ability to raise an army. However, it is also one of those states that had quite an advanced economy for the period, akin to Italy in some respects, and deeply involved in producing and trading manufactured goods.

This suggests to me that there could (arguably) be a labour shortage as well as a manpower shortage, especially in the wake of the Black Plague.

Could the Late Byzantine Empire have somehow portrayed itself as a land of opportunity - essentially guaranteeing rewards to those who immigrated to the Empire - the plan being to recruit these migrants as members of the Roman Army, and effectively conquer the land to both restore the Empires fortunes, and pay these people with plots of land.

This could apply to individuals, minor lords and their retinues, etc. Effectively part USA part Christian Ghazi.

Admittedly we're going to see Catholic-Orthodox issues, applying pressure to the Unionism conflict in play at the time, but say we do this during the early years of John V Palaiologos, could we see this strengthen the Byzantines enough to see a reversal of their fortunes - even if it meant being a Catholic Byzantine Empire?

It is easier if the Serbs of Stephan IV do not invade Greece. The bigger the Greek lands of the East Romans the better the chances to invite (Eastern Orthodox) Christians there. More land is more people to migrate. But I think migration might be limited to Eastern Europe and Italy. With Eastern Europe I mean the Balkans. And that is problematic because their loyalty to Constantinople is questionable with the existence of Bulgarian and Serbian Kingdoms
 
Well post 4th crusade the Byzantines were really lost, the Empire of Nicaea retook Constantinople for the prestige in-exchange for the productive and populous Asia Minor territories that was the basis of its power. By sacrificing Asia Minor the late Byzantines became a hallow husk living on borrowed time.

Indeed, hence why I'm looking at whether "New Blood" could help turn their fortunes around.

Immigration at the time wasn't really a thing, manpower was power to the lords of the era and most peasants spent their entire lives in their immediate region. There was immigration for skilled workers, but they numbered in the hundreds-a thousand or two and required incentives and privileges that pissed off local guilds and nowhere in the numbers required for an army; it'll be a lot easier to annex the land the peasant was on than to attractive them by word of mouth. The USA, despite all things got most of its growth from native birth rates which unlike the impoverished European peasant wasn't subject to land constraints, constant wars, and heavy taxes. The Byzantine Empire also lacked the good image that the USA had, for the most part news didn't travel to the countryside in this era so even if it did have a good image the peasants wouldn't know about it.

True, not in the way it is today - but serfs did occasionally run away, and if they're being offered the rights of being freedmen, then that is a lure (whether healthy is unclear). So it'd be marginal at best outside of the Italian city states.

The empire did occasionally settle outside people groups in its territory. One very late example was about ten thousand Cumans settled in Thrace in exchange for military service. By all accounts it worked pretty well and within a few generations they had been integrated fully. However large population migrations were still pretty rare and there would have to be significant strife in a neighboring land to trigger something.

One example of a large wave of immigration that hurt the Empire's prospects was a wave of turks from Persia that fled the Mongol conquests. They settled in Anatolia and finally tipped the overall population balance away from the native Greek speaking population and made Turks the majority rather than a warrior elite and ruling class.

Eeehhhhhhhh - Fingers crossed? :D

Well post 4th Crusade the Byzantines weren't really lost. They still ruled a decent amount of region in Northern Greece and Albania as well as parts of Southern Bulgaria and North-west Anatolia. What we could say is that the 4th Crusade killed them as a great power of Europe.

Or at least set them back - a recovery could well lead to a positive move in the right direction - one with potentially a better trading relationship with Europe - and if they're Catholic, quite a good relationship and potential for trade rather than the Ottomans.

It is easier if the Serbs of Stephan IV do not invade Greece. The bigger the Greek lands of the East Romans the better the chances to invite (Eastern Orthodox) Christians there. More land is more people to migrate. But I think migration might be limited to Eastern Europe and Italy. With Eastern Europe I mean the Balkans. And that is problematic because their loyalty to Constantinople is questionable with the existence of Bulgarian and Serbian Kingdoms

It depends I expect on how things go and how they're deployed. I wonder how plausible Russian migration would be?
 
Top