The ultimate fate of the Byzantines?

[Coop D'etat]

Byzantium was hated by the Catholics more than it was hated by the Muslims.

From what I've read, which isn't a great deal, this is precisely the opposite of what the situation was; the Byzantines hated the Western Church more than the Muslims.

There was no love lost on either side, but it is worth mentioning the pope called for several crusades against the Ottoman and the Italian city states were the best defenders of Constantinople when it came down to the siege.

Like all issues in history, it is a bit more onedimensional than "they hated each other".

Distilling Aegean politics from the 13th century onward into three groups that disliked eachother to varying degrees is inevitably going to be a silly process. It was a complex mixture of dozens of regional and minor powers spaning three religions, many ethnicities and a multitude of shifting allegiances and alliances by the many factions looking to restore or replace the Byzantines in their heartland of the islands and coastal regions of the Aegean Sea or looking to carve out a portion of it for themselves.

A such it was a chaotic system, with multiple factions that rose to the point of looking to come out on top until the Ottomans eventually did.

[Flameblade]

One interesting component to think about for a counterfactual that removes Islam from the equation: does this impact the behavior of the Mongols several centuries down the line?

One of the things that certainly didn't help the Byzantines, in our history, was the horrendous destruction of the Russian cities and farmlands, and Mesopotamian cities. Not only the loss of trading partners and the disruption of the trade routes that made Constantinople so wealthy, but also the entire Aegean had been dependent on Ukrainian grain, to varying degrees, for thousands of years by that point.

Even if everything else stayed on the historical course, except for the butterflying away of the Mongolian destruction of Russia, that would strengthen the Byzantines a fair amount.

[Simon_Jester]

One interesting component to think about for a counterfactual that removes Islam from the equation: does this impact the behavior of the Mongols several centuries down the line?

Not really, I'd think. The Mongols weren't Muslim until after they'd already moved into the region, burned the cities, and settled in as another layer of ruling class alongside the existing Turkish overlords. The Mongols would still have about the same reasons to ride west that they did historically.

[Coop D'etat]

One interesting component to think about for a counterfactual that removes Islam from the equation: does this impact the behavior of the Mongols several centuries down the line?

One of the things that certainly didn't help the Byzantines, in our history, was the horrendous destruction of the Russian cities and farmlands, and Mesopotamian cities. Not only the loss of trading partners and the disruption of the trade routes that made Constantinople so wealthy, but also the entire Aegean had been dependent on Ukrainian grain, to varying degrees, for thousands of years by that point.

Even if everything else stayed on the historical course, except for the butterflying away of the Mongolian destruction of Russia, that would strengthen the Byzantines a fair amount.

I think the East-West trade was actually strengthened by the Mongols, they were comparatively good about policing trade routes. Also, the Mongol's invasion of Asia Minor did a lot to give the Empire of Nicea the breathing room they needed to retake Macedonia and Thrace by keeping the Turks occupied for a generation or so. The Byzantines probably were net beneficiaries of the Mongol invasions. Regardless, the Mongol's weren't active until long after the 4th Crusade broke them as a major power.

[Simon_Jester]

If not for Islam, the Mongols would probably have smashed into what would have been the Byzantine empire's eastern provinces, and would still utterly devastate Russia on schedule. It's very unlikely the Mongol conquests would stop at the Byzantine border. I speculate that we might see the Mongols trying to take Constantinople unless they can be bought off or out-fought on Byzantine soil.

[Coop D'etat]

If not for Islam, the Mongols would probably have smashed into what would have been the Byzantine empire's eastern provinces, and would still utterly devastate Russia on schedule. It's very unlikely the Mongol conquests would stop at the Byzantine border. I speculate that we might see the Mongols trying to take Constantinople unless they can be bought off or out-fought on Byzantine soil.

Doubtful that the Mongols would make it to Constantinople and even if they did they'd have a hell of a time taking it. Even if they can over-run Asia Minor a strong Byzantine Empire is going to have complete naval superiority in the Aegean which is going to prevent Mongols from crossing over to Europe. Going the other way, Hungary was basically the end of the Mongol's rope, going through Bulgaria and Thrace to Constaninople is even further. Not to mention the capital is basically invulnerable to pre-gunpowder armies so long as the defender has a decent sized garrison and command of the sea.

In a sense, the capital served as a massive strategic bluff to for a strong Byzantine empire. Its a valuable prize that would be a crippling loss to the empire if taken, thus serving as a magnet for opposing armies. But its also so easily defensible that a massive army at its gates is a fairly manageable issue. The attacker gets attrited by failed assaults or lack of supplies from a long siege, while the defenders are well provisioned by the sea lanes. Meanwhile, the rest of the empire is spared being ravaged by invaders and a counter-attack can be organized at the Byzantine's convenience. Basically, the best place for a huge invading army to be for the Byzantines is besieging their capital city.

This an optimal strategy as it sacrifices some very valuable land in Thrace to the enemy but it worked extremely well against enemies with overwhelming strength that couldn't be met on the field with good chance of victory and the Byzantine's were loath to risk their very expensive armies by committing to battles they weren't confidant on winning.

[Simon_Jester]

If not for Islam, the Mongols would probably have smashed into what would have been the Byzantine empire's eastern provinces, and would still utterly devastate Russia on schedule. It's very unlikely the Mongol conquests would stop at the Byzantine border. I speculate that we might see the Mongols trying to take Constantinople unless they can be bought off or out-fought on Byzantine soil.

Doubtful that the Mongols would make it to Constantinople and even if they did they'd have a hell of a time taking it.

I'm not saying they'd succeed, I'm saying they'd try- and devastate much of the Empire's territory along the way. What happens after that, I can't say.

[Coop D'etat]

If not for Islam, the Mongols would probably have smashed into what would have been the Byzantine empire's eastern provinces, and would still utterly devastate Russia on schedule. It's very unlikely the Mongol conquests would stop at the Byzantine border. I speculate that we might see the Mongols trying to take Constantinople unless they can be bought off or out-fought on Byzantine soil.

Doubtful that the Mongols would make it to Constantinople and even if they did they'd have a hell of a time taking it.

I'm not saying they'd succeed, I'm saying they'd try- and devastate much of the Empire's territory along the way. What happens after that, I can't say.

It is possible they'd make the attempt. If an invasion is inevitable, the Byzantine's would probably prefer them to move to siege Constantinople over the other options. The city is virtually unconquerable so long as its properly garrisoned and the sea lanes are held while the army sieging the place can't damage more than an a region in Thrace, leaving the rest of the empire intact. Meanwhile the besieging army is going to be attritted by lack of supplies and failed assaults. Constanitinople was kind of a strategic bluff, its tremendous value made it a magnet for the biggest invaders but its also the best place for the Byzantines to handle an enemy to strong to easily defeat in the field.

This was a great fit with the usual Byzantine strategy of looking to defeat enemies without major engagements except on Byzantine terms with favourable odds. As a result, it seems the Empire was more vulnerable to gradual expansion of its neighbours and internal revolts slowly decreasing their territorial base than losing to one massive campaign, with the 4th Crusade the obvious exception, but that was more due to internal politics compromising the defense of the capital than a weakness with the strategy.

[LadyTevar]

One of the early stories by Turtledove was based on the idea that Mohammed's religious epiphany was a turn to Christianity, and by the time of the story (1400s) he was St. Mohammed, who had brought the Arabic tribes to Christ. The Byzantium Empire was still facing off with the Persian Empire in a war of spies and agents.

That might be the only way that Byzantium manages to survive.

[Thanas]

No, but I would not doubt Turtledove would think so.

There are countless ways for a nation to survive and countless battles that, if they went differently, would have changed the outcome by their significance only.

[Imperial Overlord]

No, but I would not doubt Turtledove would think so.

There are countless ways for a nation to survive and countless battles that, if they went differently, would have changed the outcome by their significance only.

To be clear, Turtledove just wrote an alternate history novel where Mohammed becoming a Christian occurred. It's set in the early 14th Century where both the Byzantine and Persian Empires survive. He never argues that it's the only way Byzantium could have survived. Lady Tevar's the one arguing that.

I tend to agree with you on this. Just changing the results of the Fourth Crusade would make a tremendous difference.

[Coop D'etat]

No, but I would not doubt Turtledove would think so.

There are countless ways for a nation to survive and countless battles that, if they went differently, would have changed the outcome by their significance only.

To be clear, Turtledove just wrote an alternate history novel where Mohammed becoming a Christian occurred. It's set in the early 14th Century where both the Byzantine and Persian Empires survive. He never argues that it's the only way Byzantium could have survived. Lady Tevar's the one arguing that.

I tend to agree with you on this. Just changing the results of the Fourth Crusade would make a tremendous difference.

Hell, they might have staged another comeback if they just avoided the 1341 civil war which broke them as a regional power, especially since they were on the verge of reincorporating all of mainland Greece as it was starting.

[bz249]

Hell, they might have staged another comeback if they just avoided the 1341 civil war which broke them as a regional power, especially since they were on the verge of reincorporating all of mainland Greece as it was starting.

The Byzantines had a really bad habit of ill-timed civil wars. This transformed a relatively minor issue at Manzikert into a full scale disaster and provided the legal ground for the 4th Crusade also. Luckily for them the Seljuk Turks shared this trait which allowed the Komnenian Restoration. So a "nation" with a nice continuous line of undisputed rulers would win the region (which was largely true for the Ottomans).

[Thanas]

That is a bit too simplistic view IMO.

[bz249]

That is a bit too simplistic view IMO.

Yes it is an oversimplification... however a clearer line of succession could be tremendously helpful for the Byzantines.

[Thanas]

Sure, as could a number of things, from a stronger navy to loyal troops to weaker Seljuks to stronger Mongols to weaker Mamluks to friendly Hungarians etc.....

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Sure, as could a number of things, from a stronger navy to loyal troops to weaker Seljuks to stronger Mongols to weaker Mamluks to friendly Hungarians etc.....

Speaking of friendly Hungarians, Bela III almost became the Byzantine Emperor. The Dual Monarchy of Byzantium and Hungary would make an interesting counterfactual; it just requires the second child of Emperor Manuel I Komnenos by his second wife to be a girl. Bela was married to one of his daughters by his first wife and being groomed as the heir with a Greek name, but when a male child was born he of course lost the opportunity, just to have his older brother die and become King of Hungary. If the former event hadn't happened but the later still did, they'd be united under one monarch, and Bela would already be King of Hungary by the time of Myriokephalon, which means there might have been a large Hungarian contingent present at the battle.

[Coop D'etat]

Sure, as could a number of things, from a stronger navy to loyal troops to weaker Seljuks to stronger Mongols to weaker Mamluks to friendly Hungarians etc.....

Speaking of friendly Hungarians, Bela III almost became the Byzantine Emperor. The Dual Monarchy of Byzantium and Hungary would make an interesting counterfactual; it just requires the second child of Emperor Manuel I Komnenos by his second wife to be a girl. Bela was married to one of his daughters by his first wife and being groomed as the heir with a Greek name, but when a male child was born he of course lost the opportunity, just to have his older brother die and become King of Hungary. If the former event hadn't happened but the later still did, they'd be united under one monarch, and Bela would already be King of Hungary by the time of Myriokephalon, which means there might have been a large Hungarian contingent present at the battle.

The Byzantine army at Myriokephalon was already much larger than its Turkish opponent and about as big of a force as one would commit to that kind of campaign anyway. Not that that battle was all that critical anyway, it was an easily recoverable bloody nose for the Byzantines. The failure of Myriokephalon was a missed opportunity to break the Turks' hold on the Anatolian highlands but that wasn't critical to Byzantines' future as their control of the coastline was quite secure. The collapse of the Commenian system was for reasons unrelated to Manuel's defeat.

[Imperial Overlord]

Slight sidetrack. Unless you object Thanas I'm going to use this (with proper attribution) for my sig on Librium Arcana.

Sure, as could a number of things, from a stronger navy to loyal troops to weaker Seljuks to stronger Mongols to weaker Mamluks to friendly Hungarians etc.....

It's sort of an in-joke.

[bz249]

Speaking of friendly Hungarians, Bela III almost became the Byzantine Emperor. The Dual Monarchy of Byzantium and Hungary would make an interesting counterfactual; it just requires the second child of Emperor Manuel I Komnenos by his second wife to be a girl. Bela was married to one of his daughters by his first wife and being groomed as the heir with a Greek name, but when a male child was born he of course lost the opportunity, just to have his older brother die and become King of Hungary. If the former event hadn't happened but the later still did, they'd be united under one monarch, and Bela would already be King of Hungary by the time of Myriokephalon, which means there might have been a large Hungarian contingent present at the battle.

Most probably such constellation could not work after the Great Schism. What might work is a friendlier relation between the two branches of the Arpad-dynasty resulting in the division of the spheres of influences in the Balkan (both countries have other enemies so a secure Balkan border was beneficial). Also it is an interesting that Bela III was considered as a great and successful King in Hungary, whose rule brought prosperity and increased prestige. Now the real successors of Manuel was a series of incompetent fools wasting the resources of the Empire in infighting (culminated in the events leading to the 4th Crusade) so just another competent Emperor might turn the tide at that point. Although competently ruling a relatively small feudal kingdom, where the majority of the lands are in the hand of the king and doing the same in the vast Byzantine Empire are two separate thing, so Bela could easily fail in that task.

[Logicomix]

Do you know what they called themselves? Do you know what their titles were?

ΚΩΣΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΑΜΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΡΩΜΗΟΣΥΝΗ

Spoiler

*snip links*

Yeah, I am going to take your word over that of Ostrogorsky, of course. Get bent. You got no case for a "Greek" Empire except of those of nationalist propaganda.

Did you even bother to check any of the links I posted? Most of them aren't even from Greek sources. I wasn't aware that the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art was a medium for Greek nationalism. I'm going to be lenient and blame your conspiracy tin-foil hat for your absurd post.

You will of course cite sources for that now. Sources and analysis by respectable historians.

You demand sources for the reasons and implications of the 4th Crusade? Are you completely inept at history?
The Fourth Crusade

Even your own source Georg Ostrogorsky in his "History of the Byzantine State" mentions numerous accounts of machinations and attacks perpetrated by the Catholic Church against the Byzantines.
1. Η ιδέα των σταυροφοριών έδωσε στον ισχυροποιημένο παπισμό ενα νέο μέσο για να επιχειρήσει την εξάπλωση της επιρροής του στη χριστιανική Ανατολή.
2. Ο πάπας Ουρβανός Δ' (1261-64) είχε αρχικά δώσει την ηθική του υποστήριξη στους Φράγκους της Ελλάδος στον αγώνα τους εναντίον του Βυζαντίου και είχε αφορίσει τους Γενουάτες, που αρνούνταν να ακυρώσουν τη συμμαχία τους με το βυζαντινό αυτοκράτορα.

[Thanas]

Do you know what they called themselves? Do you know what their titles were?

ΚΩΣΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΑΜΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΡΩΜΗΟΣΥΝΗ

Actually they called themselves the Roman Empire (Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων) and their titles are direct offshots of Roman and Persian titles translated into greek.

Yeah, I am going to take your word over that of Ostrogorsky, of course. Get bent. You got no case for a "Greek" Empire except of those of nationalist propaganda.

Did you even bother to check any of the links I posted? Most of them aren't even from Greek sources. I wasn't aware that the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art was a medium for Greek nationalism. I'm going to be lenient and blame your conspiracy tin-foil hat for your absurd post.

I'm going to be lenient and pretend that you just did not claim that the usage of Greek indicates that they themselves thought they were Greeks. Otherwise every Roman who primarily spoke Greek and wrote in Greek would be a greek, which I am sure will be news to Marcus Aurelius.

BTW, from your own link:

The Christian, ultimately Greek-speaking state ruled from that city would come to be called Byzantium by modern historians, although the empire's medieval citizens described themselves as "Rhomaioi," Romans, and considered themselves the inheritors of the ancient Roman empire.

You demand sources for the reasons and implications of the 4th Crusade? Are you completely inept at history?
[link=http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/the-fourth-crusade.htm]The Fourth Crusade[/link]

I fail to see how that proves your point of the catholic church being singlehandedly responsible for the fall of the Empire as you claimed. Last time I checked there were over 200 years of Byzantine rule after the fourth crusade.

Even your own source Georg Ostrogorsky in his "History of the Byzantine State" mentions numerous accounts of machinations and attacks perpetrated by the Catholic Church against the Byzantines.

1. Η ιδέα των σταυροφοριών έδωσε στον ισχυροποιημένο παπισμό ενα νέο μέσο για να επιχειρήσει την εξάπλωση της επιρροής του στη χριστιανική Ανατολή.
2. Ο πάπας Ουρβανός Δ' (1261-64) είχε αρχικά δώσει την ηθική του υποστήριξη στους Φράγκους της Ελλάδος στον αγώνα τους εναντίον του Βυζαντίου και είχε αφορίσει τους Γενουάτες, που αρνούνταν να ακυρώσουν τη συμμαχία τους με το βυζαντινό αυτοκράτορα.

....yet he does not blame the Catholic church for the fall of the Empire. BTW, if you are quoting things in Greek in the vain hope that I cannot read Greek, you are sorely mistaken. As it is, your two quotes (the first talking about how the crusades gave catholicism an opportunity to spread its opinions to the east, the second talking about how Pope Urban VII supported latin forces in Greece by excommunicating the Genoan allies of Byzantium) are not doing much for your position either as the first is just a non sequitur and the attempt by the pope to reconsitute the Latin Empire failed miserably.

[Narkis]

You demand sources for the reasons and implications of the 4th Crusade? Are you completely inept at history?
The Fourth Crusade

Your sources (and you) seem to forget the influence of a certain deposed Emperor on the Fourth Crusade's action.

Do you know what they called themselves? Do you know what their titles were?

ΚΩΣΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΑΜΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΡΩΜΗΟΣΥΝΗ

Actually they called themselves the Roman Empire (Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων) and their titles are direct offshots of Roman and Persian titles translated into greek.

His own link says the same! How the Roman Empire was neither Latin, nor Greek, but just Roman. This guy argues against the modern use of "Greeks" and "Hellenes" to describe the nation, and says it should be instead "Ρωμιοι", a corrupted form of "Ρωμαιοι" - "Romans". And that it should encompass all Balkan people, as they were Romans too.

[Thanas]

His own link says the same! How the Roman Empire was neither Latin, nor Greek, but just Roman.

I guess Logicomix better start reading his own links then.

This guy argues against the modern use of "Greeks" and "Hellenes" to describe the nation, and says it should be instead "Ρωμιοι", a corrupted form of "Ρωμαιοι" - "Romans". And that it should encompass all Balkan people, as they were Romans too.

By that standard all of Europe is Roman.

[bz249]

You demand sources for the reasons and implications of the 4th Crusade? Are you completely inept at history?
The Fourth Crusade

Wow you just managed forget the fact that the Crusader Army go to Byzantium because Alexios IV and Isaac II (former Byzantine Emperor) invited them in order to regain their lost throne. They repeated the same in the civil war of 1341 when one claimant invited the Serbian (who took Thessalia in exchange) and the other pledged help for a certain Turkish kingdom (the Ottomans) who also grabed their share from the Byzantine lands.

The Crusaders were eager to gain money, afterall this is the same Crusader Army which besieged the Hungarian (Catholic) city of Zara... but that does not change the fact that the Fourth Crusade started as a Byzantine civil war (or more precisely it was a part of a long Byzantine civil war).