WI Michael VII Paleogos focuses on Anatolia rather than europe

So say this happens. What if Michael VII after retaking constantinople in 1261 sees the situation in europe as really hopeless to byzantium. So he decides instead to focus on Anatolia by launching settler policies and moving loyal byzantine subjects from the balkans into Anatolia.

Then he redoubles his efforts and focuses on destroying the Turkish tribes in the area and take back land.
Is this possible if so how does it affect future byzantine policy with the west. By abandoning the Balkans for Anatolia can the Byzantines survive longer.
Basically my premise is that Michael sees from reading previous history that the backbone of byzantium had always been Anatolia not the balkans and so with this knowledge he goes in an east polocy wanting first to secure Anatolia and then use Anatolian resources and retake the balkas later on.

Thoughts?
 
Michael VIII

He was not very popular in Anatolia, largely because of the way he treated the last Lascarid emperor, John IV. He also tended to favor the larger landowners rather than the peasantry.
 
He was not very popular in Anatolia, largely because of the way he treated the last Lascarid emperor, John IV. He also tended to favor the larger landowners rather than the peasantry.
Its Michaele VII Michael VIII was the guy who ruled after Manuel IIs death.

Well what if he treated the last lascarid empire not so badly jus sending him to a monastry like all other byzantine emperors do.
After that he captures Constantinople like otl but is liked in Anatolia. Plus it isnt like he will retake the balkans he wil but first he just needs to secure Anatolias and build up a powerufl army.
 
Anatolia

Its Michaele VII Michael VIII was the guy who ruled after Manuel IIs death.

Well what if he treated the last lascarid empire not so badly jus sending him to a monastry like all other byzantine emperors do.
After that he captures Constantinople like otl but is liked in Anatolia. Plus it isnt like he will retake the balkans he wil but first he just needs to secure Anatolias and build up a powerufl army.
Michael VII Ducas came to the thrown right after the battle of Manzikert in 1071. Michael VIII overthrew John IV Lascaris and was emperor when Constantinople was recovered from the Latins in 1261.
 
Michael VII Ducas came to the thrown right after the battle of Manzikert in 1071. Michael VIII overthrew John IV Lascaris and was emperor when Constantinople was recovered from the Latins in 1261.
Wait then who was Michael VIII Paleogos after Manuel II or is he Michael IX:confused:
 
By abandoning the Balkans for Anatolia can the Byzantines survive longer.
Probably not. Bulgaria and Serbia are important and dangerous in this period, and even they pale in comparison to the threat of a Crusade to restore the Latin Empire. Michael Palaiologos ignores Europe at his peril.

Basically my premise is that Michael sees from reading previous history that the backbone of byzantium had always been Anatolia not the balkans and so with this knowledge he goes in an east polocy wanting first to secure Anatolia and then use Anatolian resources and retake the balkas later on.
The Balkans had been Constantinople's bedrock since the time of Alexios I Komnenos. Besides, as el t says, Michael VIII isn't especially popular with Anatolians.

Wait then who was Michael VIII Paleogos after Manuel II or is he Michael IX:confused:
Michael VIII "Paleogos" is a nonexistant person. The guy's surname is Palaiologos.
 
Probably not. Bulgaria and Serbia are important and dangerous in this period, and even they pale in comparison to the threat of a Crusade to restore the Latin Empire. Michael Palaiologos ignores Europe at his peril.


The Balkans had been Constantinople's bedrock since the time of Alexios I Komnenos. Besides, as el t says, Michael VIII isn't especially popular with Anatolians.


Michael VIII "Paleogos" is a nonexistant person. The guy's surname is Palaiologos.
Right I made a mistake. it is John VIII Not Michael.....:eek:
Also I guess you are right but is their any plausable way for him to saver Anatolia from being overun by turks?
 
Also I guess you are right but is their any plausable way for him to saver Anatolia from being overun by turks?
I think it's very difficult at this late stage. Michael VIII did about as well as he could, in the circumstances, IMO: though I'm very far from an expert on the Palaiologan successor state. Perhaps if his successor Andronikos II (is it II? or III? anyway...) has a run of good luck, then the Anatolian territories can be consolidated somewhat...
 
I think it's very difficult at this late stage. Michael VIII did about as well as he could, in the circumstances, IMO: though I'm very far from an expert on the Palaiologan successor state. Perhaps if his successor Andronikos II (is it II? or III? anyway...) has a run of good luck, then the Anatolian territories can be consolidated somewhat...

Andronicus II. Andronicus III is Michael VIII's great-great grandson.

Judging by the success of the Catalan Company, if the Byzantines were able to preserve a small (5-10,000 men might be enough) army of sufficient quality and leadership, Asia Minor might be manageable.

But what is it going to be maintained with? Where will the men come from?

I think Michael did neglect Asia Minor excessively, but a Byzantine state facing immediate trouble trouble from Europe wouldn't have much choice in the matter even in the hands of a Lascarid basileus.
 
Last edited:
Another problem is that the Empire was virtually broke. Trade had passed to Venetians and other Italians (Genoese etc.) while Asia Minor was overran by Turks who kept harassing (leftovers) Byzantine provinces all the time and Balkans income was minimal since most of it was at the hands of latin overlords.

The Emperor(s) first concern was to find a source of income if they wanted to raise and maintain a capable army.
 
Another problem is that the Empire was virtually broke. Trade had passed to Venetians and other Italians (Genoese etc.) while Asia Minor was overran by Turks who kept harassing (leftovers) Byzantine provinces all the time and Balkans income was minimal since most of it was at the hands of latin overlords.

The Emperor(s) first concern was to find a source of income if they wanted to raise and maintain a capable army.

That isn't so much a problem at the beginning of his reign then it is at the end. The Nicene Laskarids were able to build up a sizeable economic surplus which was where Michael got much of his money to finance his military and diplomatic endeavors. The problem of bankruptcy really only hit home during Andronikos' II reign, which is one of the main reasons his rule was so disastrous.

The main problem with Michael focusing on Anatolia instead of Europe is that the scenario ends with Charles of Anjou ruling Constantinople. There was a very good reason why Michael was so fixated on Europe; it was do that or die. If Charles of Anjou and any equivalent persons can be taken out of the European picture, then and only then an Anatolian policy is a good idea. With the Laskarid monetary reserves and armies still at full strength, an attack on the collapsing Seljuk Sultanate of Rum would probably help the Empire a lot.
 
That isn't so much a problem at the beginning of his reign then it is at the end. The Nicene Laskarids were able to build up a sizeable economic surplus which was where Michael got much of his money to finance his military and diplomatic endeavors. The problem of bankruptcy really only hit home during Andronikos' II reign, which is one of the main reasons his rule was so disastrous.

The main problem with Michael focusing on Anatolia instead of Europe is that the scenario ends with Charles of Anjou ruling Constantinople. There was a very good reason why Michael was so fixated on Europe; it was do that or die. If Charles of Anjou and any equivalent persons can be taken out of the European picture, then and only then an Anatolian policy is a good idea. With the Laskarid monetary reserves and armies still at full strength, an attack on the collapsing Seljuk Sultanate of Rum would probably help the Empire a lot.

I am sure that people of Constantinople might prefer to stick with Michael VIII rather than accept a Catholic in the throne. I can understand Michael's rush to prevent this from happening but on the other hand he could count on a popular revolution against Charles.
 
I am sure that people of Constantinople might prefer to stick with Michael VIII rather than accept a Catholic in the throne. I can understand Michael's rush to prevent this from happening but on the other hand he could count on a popular revolution against Charles.

Fine lot of good that will do him (Michael) - or the empire - however.

Besides, what popular revolutions (as distinct from the efforts by Nicaea and Epirus) did any good against the Latin Empire?
 
Fine lot of good that will do him (Michael) - or the empire - however.

Besides, what popular revolutions (as distinct from the efforts by Nicaea and Epirus) did any good against the Latin Empire?

Well then maybe what we can have is Charles of Anjou being killed by Manfried at the battle of Benevetium, but then Manfried also dies and it ends in a Pyrrhic Angein victory. With Charles of Anjou and Manfried dead early on, Michael doesn't really have to face the powerful coalition that Charles built later on. Then would this policy be feasible.
 
Last edited:
Wel then maybe what we can have is Charles of Anjou bein killed by Manfried at the battle of Benevetium but then Manfried also dies and it ends in a pyhric Angein victory. With Charles of Anjou and Manfried dead early on Michael doesn't really have to face the powerful coalition that CHarles built later on. THen would this polocy be feasable.

Spellcheck, man. Spellcheck.

And as BG said, there's still Bulgaria and Serbia - although they're not as dire as Charles of Anjou, it isn't as if they're not going to leap on the Empire's back if Michael focuses on Asia Minor.
 
Spellcheck, man. Spellcheck.

And as BG said, there's still Bulgaria and Serbia - although they're not as dire as Charles of Anjou, it isn't as if they're not going to leap on the Empire's back if Michael focuses on Asia Minor.
Whoops just did that spell check.:eek:

They try to leap on the empires back but they cant take Constantinople. Plus Bulgaria at this point remember in 1261 has just been ravaged by the mongols and Serbia too got screwed up. So I don't believe they can really put up much of a fight to take Constantinople. Plus since they lack a navy taking any of the coastal cities is nigh impossible. Maybe outer Thrace and Macedonia but not the main parts of the empire aka Thessaloniki, Morea, Constantinople, Adrianople, etc.
 
Michael VIII

If he gives more support to the border troops, such as increasing their pay, that would certainly increase his popularity in the country. Eventually though I think that a popular Anatolian general would revolt.
 
Top