WI: Theodore Komnenos Doukas, Emperor of Thessalonica, captures Constantinople in 1230

As the tin says, what if Theodore Komnenos Doukas, Emperor of Thessalonica, avoided being defeated by the Bulgarians and successfully captured Constantinople in 1230? Up until his defeat and capture by the Bulgarians, Theodore and the Empire of Thessalonica had been expanding rapidly in the Balkans, as shown by this image on Wikipedia. Please note that it was also called the Despotate of Epirus.

800px-Epirus_1205-1230-en.svg.png


With Theodore capturing Constantinople so early, what will the Niceans do ? How long do the remaining Latin statelets hold out ?
 
Well for one thing his immediate threat would be the Bulgarians and would focus on finishing them of but after that I think he will focus his attention on greece and the west. I think the biggest butterfly will be that theodore controlling constantinople would mean the Niceans may focus on Anatolia, since I dont think the Niceans had a powerful enough navy to take constantinople and their capture of the city otl was a lucky fluke. In either case I think with the threat of the turks, the Komnenoi in trebizond the Niceans may not focus as much on the west. The ramifications could be in the mid term that the Niceans focus on Anatolia to build up a powerbase so as to challenge the Epirotes could lead to potentially a byzantine state retaking anatolia from the turks. After all the last thing Vatatzes wanted was a multifront war so I expect what we may end up with is a byzantine empire split in two. One based in Anatolia the other based in Constantinople, and yes their may be conflict between the two of them, but in the long run an early capture of Constantinople and also the conquest of Greece by the Epirotes may prevent the imposition by western lords of feudalism in Byzantine territory, otl one of the causes for the alienation of the peseantry and also the poor state of affairs for the Byzantines post 1204 is that the western crusaders basically implemented a governance system not suited for the region.

I dont think the latin statelets will hold out they will be easily conquered. What I expect is given the number of enemies I think we may see an implicit agreement/truce between Epirus and Nicea and I think the epirotes will have a tough time, but again I think that what is needed for Epirus not to fall apart, otl Michael VIII was really lucky and so he managed to keep the Byzantine state alive is for the conflict between the Pope and the HRE to persist and neither side emerges victorious over the other in such a case coupled with a playing of the genoese and venetians against each other could create conditions for the byzantine state to survive. But I suspect the anatolian nicean state to do really well and prosper. Again it is all about the tl and butterflies because at that time unfortunately byzantine survival was dependent on the actions of its neighbors not the successor states themselves.
 
What about Venice? I doubt they'd like to see the rise of a state that could threaten their interests in the Aegean, and they were at the apex of their power.
 
As the tin says, what if Theodore Komnenos Doukas, Emperor of Thessalonica, avoided being defeated by the Bulgarians and successfully captured Constantinople in 1230? Up until his defeat and capture by the Bulgarians, Theodore and the Empire of Thessalonica had been expanding rapidly in the Balkans, as shown by this image on Wikipedia. Please note that it was also called the Despotate of Epirus.
Well an an Empire of Thessalonica retaking the capital is good in the long-term for the Rhomaioi themselves in the long run despite the fact that the Empire proper would likely be divide for longer.

With Balkans cut off to the Nicaeans, they would be more of an Anatolian focused Empire. This is great news for the Greeks in the region as they would likely focus on consolidation/defense from Turkish raids.

As the Sultanate of Rum was destabilized by the Mongols later, they would also likely be attacked by the Nicaeans.

As for the long-term, I think that some sort of confrontation between "Rhomania" and Nicaea is quite inevitable as Anatolia would be a major point of contention for Constantinople. The Nicaeans would also struggle with legitimacy now with a new Emperor ruling in Constantinople. Though this Epirote Empire would definitely be a regional player in the Balkans. It would also likely have a better time defending against Latin attacks like the one led by Charles of Anjou in otl.
 
Well an an Empire of Thessalonica retaking the capital is good in the long-term for the Rhomaioi themselves in the long run despite the fact that the Empire proper would likely be divide for longer.

With Balkans cut off to the Nicaeans, they would be more of an Anatolian focused Empire. This is great news for the Greeks in the region as they would likely focus on consolidation/defense from Turkish raids.

As the Sultanate of Rum was destabilized by the Mongols later, they would also likely be attacked by the Nicaeans.

As for the long-term, I think that some sort of confrontation between "Rhomania" and Nicaea is quite inevitable as Anatolia would be a major point of contention for Constantinople. The Nicaeans would also struggle with legitimacy now with a new Emperor ruling in Constantinople. Though this Epirote Empire would definitely be a regional player in the Balkans. It would also likely have a better time defending against Latin attacks like the one led by Charles of Anjou in otl.
Could coexistence between the two states be possible in the long-term??
 
Could coexistence between the two states be possible in the long-term??
Nah. Anatolia is too vital to the rest of the Empire unlike the more fringe Empire of Trebizond in Pontus. I imagine that after the Emperor reasserts his power in the Balkans (which is the question of when rather than if) he'd seek to attack the Nicaeans.

A perfect opportunity for something like this is if say something like the Palaiologian usurpation of the throne occurs. It really pissed off a lot of people and Michaels VIII Palaiologos got excommunicated over it starting the Arsenite Schism.

If another member of the former Nicaean royal family flees to Constantinople, the Emperor could simply invade and install himself as Emperor over the whole reunited Empire. Alternatively there could also be a marriage agreement where the thrones of both realms become reunited under one monarch.

As for Trebizond, their independence will likely be threatened in the long term in the face of a renewed Empire.

So, in essence, IOTL the wrong Eastern Roman successor state captured Constantinople?
Some minor changes to otl and you could end up with a Crisis of the Third Century type scenario where the Empire after a while is reunited by an Aurelian/Claudius-Gothicus type Emperor instead of the Palaiologian hot mess we got in otl.
 
I do not think it is possible to retain Constantinople for a long time without an ally. One of the characteristics of the interaction between states în this period was the desire to conquer/reconquer Constantinople. Whoever won would have had a hard time retaining it as everyone else would band together to wrestle the city back from them. So without an ally to compensate Venice's fleet, the thesalonican empire would be unable to effectively blocade Constantinople and will need at some point in time to lift the siege to placate some other threat (the bulgarians and niceeans tried to siege Constantinople but they withdrew when they encountered resistance from Venice).
 
Nah. Anatolia is too vital to the rest of the Empire unlike the more fringe Empire of Trebizond in Pontus. I imagine that after the Emperor reasserts his power in the Balkans (which is the question of when rather than if) he'd seek to attack the Nicaeans.

A perfect opportunity for something like this is if say something like the Palaiologian usurpation of the throne occurs. It really pissed off a lot of people and Michaels VIII Palaiologos got excommunicated over it starting the Arsenite Schism.

If another member of the former Nicaean royal family flees to Constantinople, the Emperor could simply invade and install himself as Emperor over the whole reunited Empire. Alternatively there could also be a marriage agreement where the thrones of both realms become reunited under one monarch.

As for Trebizond, their independence will likely be threatened in the long term in the face of a renewed Empire.


Some minor changes to otl and you could end up with a Crisis of the Third Century type scenario where the Empire after a while is reunited by an Aurelian/Claudius-Gothicus type Emperor instead of the Palaiologian hot mess we got in otl.
To be fair the paleologi were not that bad it is just unfortunate that Michael VIII had to deal with Charles of Anjou and that Andronicus II trusted the wrong guy as Megas Doux which screwed the byzantine navy allowing the italians to secure their dominence in the straights. So they were not all bad. In fact Kantakouzos should be blamed for the ottomans in europe since he was the guy who in a bid for power invited the turks to Thrace to fight the civil war. So the paleologos shouldnt directly be blamed since most of the emperors were tied/helpless to do anything again due to the Charles of Anjou and also the religious schisms at the time. In all honesty Michael VIII had a tough time dealing with statesman of the calibre of Charles of Anjou so if there are no butterflies and Manfried dies, Charles takes Naples and Sicily then the string of alliances he built along with backing from the pope and a lack of the sicilian vespers(since I doubt theodore doukas or his successor would have the capability to finance such a large scale revolt would lead to a conquest of the european Byzantine empire of theodore and what we get is a powerful latin state under Charles of Anjou who by that point with the momentum behind him could potentially become the major player in the region. Thus what we get is Nicea surviving under Vatatzes and a powerful frankish state under Charles of Anjou. So yeah no matter how you cut it, Theodore doukas was screwed, just as the Latin empire was screwed.

As you can tell for me Charles of Anjou is the guy who brought down the byzantine state permanently.
 
To be fair the paleologi were not that bad it is just unfortunate that Michael VIII had to deal with Charles of Anjou and that Andronicus II trusted the wrong guy as Megas Doux which screwed the byzantine navy allowing the italians to secure their dominence in the straights. So they were not all bad. In fact Kantakouzos should be blamed for the ottomans in europe since he was the guy who in a bid for power invited the turks to Thrace to fight the civil war. So the paleologos shouldnt directly be blamed since most of the emperors were tied/helpless to do anything again due to the Charles of Anjou and also the religious schisms at the time. In all honesty Michael VIII had a tough time dealing with statesman of the calibre of Charles of Anjou so if there are no butterflies and Manfried dies, Charles takes Naples and Sicily then the string of alliances he built along with backing from the pope and a lack of the sicilian vespers(since I doubt theodore doukas or his successor would have the capability to finance such a large scale revolt would lead to a conquest of the european Byzantine empire of theodore and what we get is a powerful latin state under Charles of Anjou who by that point with the momentum behind him could potentially become the major player in the region. Thus what we get is Nicea surviving under Vatatzes and a powerful frankish state under Charles of Anjou. So yeah no matter how you cut it, Theodore doukas was screwed, just as the Latin empire was screwed.

As you can tell for me Charles of Anjou is the guy who brought down the byzantine state permanently.

That may be so...but assuming that Charles of Anjou does actually succeed in restoring the Latin Empire with himself at the helm (let's be real here, that was the Sicilian King's endgame) what's not to say that he or his successors decide that he wants to claim Nicaea and Trebizond? After all, the Latin Empire is technically the Empire of the Romans, which means that Nicaea and Trebizond are held by claimants to that title.

Of course I say this, and I'll probably be on the Byzantine s*it list now.

Nah. Anatolia is too vital to the rest of the Empire unlike the more fringe Empire of Trebizond in Pontus. I imagine that after the Emperor reasserts his power in the Balkans (which is the question of when rather than if) he'd seek to attack the Nicaeans.

A perfect opportunity for something like this is if say something like the Palaiologian usurpation of the throne occurs. It really pissed off a lot of people and Michaels VIII Palaiologos got excommunicated over it starting the Arsenite Schism.

If another member of the former Nicaean royal family flees to Constantinople, the Emperor could simply invade and install himself as Emperor over the whole reunited Empire. Alternatively there could also be a marriage agreement where the thrones of both realms become reunited under one monarch.

As for Trebizond, their independence will likely be threatened in the long term in the face of a renewed Empire.


Some minor changes to otl and you could end up with a Crisis of the Third Century type scenario where the Empire after a while is reunited by an Aurelian/Claudius-Gothicus type Emperor instead of the Palaiologian hot mess we got in otl.
Kinda curious to ask, but how long do you think the status quo will last before the Komnenoi-Doukoi makes a play for Nicaea (and eventually Trebizond)?
 
That may be so...but assuming that Charles of Anjou does actually succeed in restoring the Latin Empire with himself at the helm (let's be real here, that was the Sicilian King's endgame) what's not to say that he or his successors decide that he wants to claim Nicaea and Trebizond? After all, the Latin Empire is technically the Empire of the Romans, which means that Nicaea and Trebizond are held by claimants to that title.

Of course I say this, and I'll probably be on the Byzantine s*it list now.


Kinda curious to ask, but how long do you think the status quo will last before the Komnenoi-Doukoi makes a play for Nicaea (and eventually Trebizond)?
As for Charles Anjou oh yeah of course his successors would want to claim Nicea and Trebizond but the thing is by this point if he controls latin empire+the rich french counties+rich provence etc as well as much of Italy and Southern Italy well the guy is going to be in charge of quite the strong nation which means he may be viewed as a big threat so I think he will by that point or his successors be more focused on managing the nobles across his scattered lands and protect them from ambitious french kings and HRE. So I dont think he will make a play for Anatolia his and his successors goals will be to control Italy and the balkans and Greece and maybe if possible also much of southern france and possibly Aragon since he had a not so good relationship with the Aragonese given the Aragonese were closely tied to his hated enemies the House of Staufen. He may make a play at Jerusalem but again he and his successors will have too much on their plate to handle and I expect eventually a conflict between Anjou and Capet/Valois in later generations since by that point Anjou would have become to powerful for the French King to allow it to do whatever it wants.

Komennoi doukai wont make a play for Nicea he be too busy fighting the serbs, bulgarians, latins, franks, pretenders, etc. Unfortunately in a nonasb situation he is pretty much screwed unless things go horribly wrong for all his neighbors. I think if he is able to stabilize the empire and by some miracle defeat all the myriad of western foes then he may focus on the east but by then I think Nicea would be too powerful. Vatatzes was a brilliant guy in a different sense from Michael VIII. Wheras Michael enjoyed support among the elite byzantine families, Vatatzes was more of a populist and his reforms were aimed at strenghtened the power of the beurocracy at the expense of the byzantine nobility. One of the reasons Michael took power otl was that the vatatzes pissed off to many nobles, but in this timeline if Vatatzes focuses on Anatolia to build a power base he would have much greater success and can install loyalists in the newly conquered territories and that coupled with popular support would make any serious noble revolt unlikely. If Nicea can take trebizond and foster a good relationship with the Ilkhanate perhaps as a counter to the mamluks then he can take advantage of the profitable silk road trade route. In such a case the komenoi doukas are done for, facing a power Nicean state on one side and western christendom as well as angry slavic neihbors from the other side. I think what will most likely happen is that Komenoi doukai may engage in a political marriage with a powerful Vatazes in the best case and reconcile east and west that way though in the worst case I see a partition of the Komnenoi doukai lands, perhaps exhausted from his wars with the western powers the Niceans take advantage and conquer constantinople. Things were that bad unfortunately for Theodore Komnenois Doukas.

On the other hand if Theodore is able to overcome his enemies maybe he conquers bulgaria and serbia, drives the franks from Greece and a host of lucky events happen that cause his powerful neighbors to weakean he could perhaps in a best case retake much of the balkans sans Croatia and Greece though maybe the pelopenese would be difficult. In any case such a strong state could contend with the Nicean state but even then the problem is the lack of a navy. The Italians including Venice will not want this rising state to have a strong fleet to challenge their dominence and that means even if Theodore wants to invade Nicea he wont have a fleet capable of transporting the invasion force neccessary to defeat the Niceans and vice versa. For him to make a go at Nicea at the very least the Italian martime powers need to be checked and the Byzantine navy strong enough to repel them a big call.
 
Last edited:
As for Charles Anjou oh yeah of course his successors would want to claim Nicea and Trebizond but the thing is by this point if he controls latin empire+the rich french counties+rich provence etc as well as much of Italy and Southern Italy well the guy is going to be in charge of quite the strong nation which means he may be viewed as a big threat so I think he will by that point or his successors be more focused on managing the nobles across his scattered lands and protect them from ambitious french kings and HRE. So I dont think he will make a play for Anatolia his and his successors goals will be to control Italy and the balkans and Greece and maybe if possible also much of southern france and possibly Aragon since he had a not so good relationship with the Aragonese given the Aragonese were closely tied to his hated enemies the House of Staufen. He may make a play at Jerusalem but again he and his successors will have too much on their plate to handle and I expect eventually a conflict between Anjou and Capet/Valois in later generations since by that point Anjou would have become to powerful for the French King to allow it to do whatever it wants.

Komennoi doukai wont make a play for Nicea he be too busy fighting the serbs, bulgarians, latins, franks, pretenders, etc. Unfortunately in a nonasb situation he is pretty much screwed unless things go horribly wrong for all his neighbors. I think if he is able to stabilize the empire and by some miracle defeat all the myriad of western foes then he may focus on the east but by then I think Nicea would be too powerful. Vatatzes was a brilliant guy in a different sense from Michael VIII. Wheras Michael enjoyed support among the elite byzantine families, Vatatzes was more of a populist and his reforms were aimed at strenghtened the power of the beurocracy at the expense of the byzantine nobility. One of the reasons Michael took power otl was that the vatatzes pissed off to many nobles, but in this timeline if Vatatzes focuses on Anatolia to build a power base he would have much greater success and can install loyalists in the newly conquered territories and that coupled with popular support would make any serious noble revolt unlikely. If Nicea can take trebizond and foster a good relationship with the Ilkhanate perhaps as a counter to the mamluks then he can take advantage of the profitable silk road trade route. In such a case the komenoi doukas are done for, facing a power Nicean state on one side and western christendom as well as angry slavic neihbors from the other side. I think what will most likely happen is that Komenoi doukai may engage in a political marriage with a powerful Vatazes in the best case and reconcile east and west that way though in the worst case I see a partition of the Komnenoi doukai lands, perhaps exhausted from his wars with the western powers the Niceans take advantage and conquer constantinople. Things were that bad unfortunately for Theodore Komnenois Doukas.

On the other hand if Theodore is able to overcome his enemies maybe he conquers bulgaria and serbia, drives the franks from Greece and a host of lucky events happen that cause his powerful neighbors to weakean he could perhaps in a best case retake much of the balkans sans Croatia and Greece though maybe the pelopenese would be difficult. In any case such a strong state could contend with the Nicean state but even then the problem is the lack of a navy. The Italians including Venice will not want this rising state to have a strong fleet to challenge their dominence and that means even if Theodore wants to invade Nicea he wont have a fleet capable of transporting the invasion force neccessary to defeat the Niceans and vice versa. For him to make a go at Nicea at the very least the Italian martime powers need to be checked and the Byzantine navy strong enough to repel them a big call.
Based on what you said here, you could just end up with Epirus holding on long enough to weaken the other roman rivals in the Balkans. Then if say Theodore dies, or is overthrown, the Nicaeans could stage a coup and just waltz into Constantinople. Though this would be something of a long game.

As for the nature of the Roman word here you might have it resemble the Diumvarate between Mark Antony and Augustus. The two rulers might sign an alliance not to attack each other in exchange for both being made "co-emperors" ruling their respective domains of the Empire. This prevents a war and gives both parties some more legitimacy as it presents some semblance of roman unity.

Then as one party fails the other would probably use that to their advantage to retake the whole Empire for themsleves.
 
Why do we assume that Charles of Anjou’s life will go exactly the same as OTL with a POD where he is 4 years old? He might not marry Beatrix or be offered Sicily by the Pope for all we know.
 
Why do we assume that Charles of Anjou’s life will go exactly the same as OTL with a POD where he is 4 years old? He might not marry Beatrix or be offered Sicily by the Pope for all we know.
True but if not him than someone else. That is how sorry of a state the roman successor states were. if not charles than maybe the King of Hungary if not him then the Hohenstaufens Manfried had no love for the Komnenoi only difference was he was stopped by Charles, if not Manfried then the italians, Theodore frankly stood no chance against Venice which could strangle his state. It was that bad of a situation and lets not even get into all the pretender rebels.

I find that post 1204 pod's while they can be plausably made to have Byzantium survive they do stretch to the limits because again the primary issue the byzantines had was they lost the support of the peasantry and lost control of the economy to foreign Italians and lost control of the military to mercenaries who were expensive and lost control of the beaurocracy to decadent and wasteful noble houses. Given all of this and the host of enemies they faced byzantium was for the most part a corpse.

But in spite of all that I think what Basileous Komnenos said would work, which is duumvirate I mean otl the emperor of trebizond technically recognized the emperor in constantinople and vice versa in the 14th century I think. But in any case I think Nicea under Vatatzes has the best chance to survive and depending on how they play their cards and the geopolitical situation and luck they could possibly replicate what the ottomans did. Which is once they have built up a lot of power in Anatolia and built a lot of goodwill with the people since Nicea wasnt until Michael VIII that interested in restoring ties with the pope what we could get is possibly a reformed Byzantine state. How it would look would be up to the author of the TL, but really the only chance of real reform for the Byzantine Empire was sad to say and kinda not very favorable to theodore, is that Vatatzes is able to implement reforms successfully and his successors continue those policies, curtail the power of the noble families and if they can do that and take control of Anatolia from the Turks then I can see them eventually after many generations being in a position to rise as a major power, but again it all is dependent on the Nicean State being able to reform itself. The romans were good at adapting to the changing times, unfortunately the Byzantines did not have the breathing space to do so in this time period, but with attention focused on Theodore, Nicea would get that precious breathing room to grow and become strong.

So ironically I think as a result of theodore komnenos taking Constantinople he becomes the enemy of the known world and basically serves as the sacrificial lamb for the Nicean state. I think a good analogy would be to the role played by the old prussians for the Lithuanians. The Old prussians though completely outnumbered and overwhelmed by crusaders put up fierce resistance as a result of which Lithuania was able to have the space necessary to consolidate and become a powerful European state. I see the same role being played here.
 
Last edited:
True but if not him than someone else. That is how sorry of a state the roman successor states were. if not charles than maybe the King of Hungary if not him then the Hohenstaufens Manfried had no love for the Komnenoi only difference was he was stopped by Charles, if not Manfried then the italians, Theodore frankly stood no chance against Venice which could strangle his state. It was that bad of a situation and lets not even get into all the pretender rebels.

I find that post 1204 pod's while they can be plausably made to have Byzantium survive they do stretch to the limits because again the primary issue the byzantines had was they lost the support of the peasantry and lost control of the economy to foreign Italians and lost control of the military to mercenaries who were expensive and lost control of the beaurocracy to decadent and wasteful noble houses. Given all of this and the host of enemies they faced byzantium was for the most part a corpse.

But in spite of all that I think what Basileous Komnenos said would work, which is duumvirate I mean otl the emperor of trebizond technically recognized the emperor in constantinople and vice versa in the 14th century I think. But in any case I think Nicea under Vatatzes has the best chance to survive and depending on how they play their cards and the geopolitical situation and luck they could possibly replicate what the ottomans did. Which is once they have built up a lot of power in Anatolia and built a lot of goodwill with the people since Nicea wasnt until Michael VIII that interested in restoring ties with the pope what we could get is possibly a reformed Byzantine state. How it would look would be up to the author of the TL, but really the only chance of real reform for the Byzantine Empire was sad to say and kinda not very favorable to theodore, is that Vatatzes is able to implement reforms successfully and his successors continue those policies, curtail the power of the noble families and if they can do that and take control of Anatolia from the Turks then I can see them eventually after many generations being in a position to rise as a major power, but again it all is dependent on the Nicean State being able to reform itself. The romans were good at adapting to the changing times, unfortunately the Byzantines did not have the breathing space to do so in this time period, but with attention focused on Theodore, Nicea would get that precious breathing room to grow and become strong.

So ironically I think as a result of theodore komnenos taking Constantinople he becomes the enemy of the known world and basically serves as the sacrificial lamb for the Nicean state. I think a good analogy would be to the role played by the old prussians for the Lithuanians. The Old prussians though completely outnumbered and overwhelmed by crusaders put up fierce resistance as a result of which Lithuania was able to have the space necessary to consolidate and become a powerful European state. I see the same role being played here.
To be fair, it's not impossible for any of the Roman Sucessor States to survive. But after 1204, it's going to take a lot of miracles for them to actually ensure that what is left of their lands isn't to remain under foreign rule, which...they kinda succeeded for a time but ultimately didn't last.
 
Assuming Nicea keeps its focus on Rum after Thessalonica captures Constantinople, how much territory would Nicea be able to conquer from them without any European territory distracting them ?
 
Probably not that much, Anatolia stopped being a fertile ground for troop recruitment sometime before the conquest of Constantinople and the resulting "Exile." The Turks simply had much more military capability, especially accounting for the ghazis and migrating Turkomans.
 
To be fair the paleologi were not that bad it is just unfortunate that Michael VIII had to deal with Charles of Anjou and that Andronicus II trusted the wrong guy as Megas Doux which screwed the byzantine navy allowing the italians to secure their dominence in the straights. So they were not all bad. I
The Palaiologoi were definitely that bad. Michael VIII due to Nicean internal politics outright targeted the Anatolian military and small farmer clashes the Laskarids had painfully reconstituted in the past half century. Having to focus west due to Charles shenanigans certainly did not help but forcing the Anatolian populations into at least two revolts between taxation, support for Michael's fellow aristocrats and local support for the Lascarids made things far worse than they should.

Andronicus... for all his failings his father was a very capable man. Andronicus aside from being an unmitigated disaster in general... when all is said and done he is the man who inherited what was still one of the stronger military powers of the era and start his reign by disbanding the army and navy his father and the Lascarids had created at the very time it was needed most. Too bad from the byzantine point of view the only thing he was capable in was surviving plots.
 
Top