AHC: Better 14th Century for Byzantines

[John Fredrick Parker]

Not long after the period of restoration under Michael VIII, the Eastern Roman Empire of OTL underwent a final period of decline; when the father of the last would-be emperor took power in 1391, it was very much a shell of its former self, unable to do much on its own to to slow the expansion of the Ottomans that would supplant them. What, would you say, was the biggest turning point during this period when things went off the rails for the empire? What would be the best PoD to give them the best chance of avoiding being snuffed out in the century to follow?

No PoDs prior to the death of Michael IX in 1320; if the civil war the broke out the following year is inevitable at the point, then perhaps it makes more sense to find some way to reduce the damage done during the roughly half-century which OTL corresponded to the "rule" of John V. In any event, once we have a PoD, I'd like us to look at the longer term implications -- how do the Balkans, Anatolia, et el develop with the Turks in a less favorable position, etc?

What do you guys think?

 

[Nuraghe]

Not long after the period of restoration under Michael VIII, the Eastern Roman Empire of OTL underwent a final period of decline; when the father of the last would-be emperor took power in 1391, it was very much a shell of its former self, unable to do much on its own to to slow the expansion of the Ottomans that would supplant them. What, would you say, was the biggest turning point during this period when things went off the rails for the empire? What would be the best PoD to give them the best chance of avoiding being snuffed out in the century to follow?

No PoDs prior to the death of Michael IX in 1320; if the civil war the broke out the following year is inevitable at the point, then perhaps it makes more sense to find some way to reduce the damage done during the roughly half-century which OTL corresponded to the "rule" of John V. In any event, once we have a PoD, I'd like us to look at the longer term implications -- how do the Balkans, Anatolia, et el develop with the Turks in a less favorable position, etc?

What do you guys think?

unfortunately I can't answer fully now, but I would suggest focusing on facilitating Andronikos III's seizure of power during the civil war of 1321 - 28, and preventing him from dying in 1341 ( since his reign was all in all a success, given that it consolidated the European territories of Rhomania ( annexing parts of Latin Greece ) furthermore, by reducing the damage of the civil war, it could allow resources to be allocated to the relief of Nicaea and Nicomedia which in Otl fell into the hands of the Ottomans in the decade following the end of the conflict within the Empire, Furthermore, John VI Kantakouzenos was one of his most loyal followers, therefore his continued government ( Andronikos ) should limit the antagonism between the patriarch John XIV of Constantinople, the courtier Alexius Apocaucos and Anna of Savoy towards him ( John ) I hope later to be able to be more exhaustive in analyzing my idea

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

unfortunately I can't answer fully now, but I would suggest focusing on facilitating Andronikos III's seizure of power during the civil war of 1321 - 28, and preventing him from dying in 1341...

Actually, having Androikos III live as long as his son (or even grandson) would help things quite a bit, provided he avoids any further civil wars for the duration of his rule; that, in itself, prevents the Civil War of 1341-47 and the War of 1352-57, and likely means the revolt in Thessalonica doesn't happen either. Of course, we say this, but this is all at the time of the Black Death, so prospects for increasing stability (or prolonging Androikos' life for that matter) may be limited.

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

Maybe the Byzantines focus on kicking out the Ottomans once Timur is done kicking Ottoman ass? That, and preventing the civil war of 1341-1347, (you said this yourself) would do very good.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Maybe the Byzantines focus on kicking out the Ottomans once Timur is done kicking Ottoman ass?

Seeing as Timur died in 1405, that'd be after our window.

That, and preventing the civil war of 1341-1347, (you said this yourself) would do very good.

Thinking about that, I have to wonder -- supposing the war is avoided; say Androikos III lives a bit longer, but then the Black Death hits (1347 to 1350), and he dies then; John V still comes to power, but as a teen instead of a child (so likely the regency is avoided at least).

How is the next half century likely to go for the empire now? Sure, you've avoided a regency battle in the 1340's, but is that enough for no more civil wars to break out for the rest of the century? Ohran has still taken quite a bit of territory by this point, including some very too-close-for-comfort cities near Constantinople, though still not quite as much as he eventually took and consolidated OTL; could the Ottoman threat have been reduced with a more attentive empire in the 1340's and 50's? And depending on how those two questions were answered, what would that mean for the 15th Century?

 

[Elfwine]

How is the next half century likely to go for the empire now? Sure, you've avoided a regency battle in the 1340's, but is that enough for no more civil wars to break out for the rest of the century?

Given the kind of emperor John V was OTL once of age, it's not easy to see him being the man the empire needs to deal with a still precarious situation. He might very easily face problems with his younger brother Michael, or his sons, or both as far as "No, it's not enough."

It's not inevitable, but it's going to take a much better emperor than he was OTL in the 1360s-1391 for me to really suggest confidently than he'd avoid them.

And as for the Ottomans - to paraphrase a British admiral confident in the Royal Navy: I do not say that Ottoman triumph is inevitable, I only say that someone like OTL's John V (or OTL John VI, from all signs) cannot stop them.

It's the sort of problem that the empire needs the resources and leadership to keep succeeding at the task, instead of "but if this happens then the peril isn't an issue" even more than say, not losing territory ot Serbia.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Given the kind of emperor John V was OTL once of age, it's not easy to see him being the man the empire needs to deal with a still precarious situation.

Hm, I felt as much could be the case. Do we know what it is that made John into such a bad ruler OTL (and if it might be avoided TTL)?

And could somebody else realistically have taken power in this time with a 1341 PoD? Would John Kantakouzenos be a contender for the throne if there was no regency issue around John V; if not, does that mean his son Matthew isn’t going to be an issue? What about Alexios III of Trebizond (who might make a claim through his mother, even if he’s only around 10 at the time of the plague)?

 

[Elfwine]

Hm, I felt as much could be the case. Do we know what it is that made John into such a bad ruler OTL (and if it might be avoided TTL)?

It's a hard job. It's harder to figure out how some men did have the qualities to do well than how someone in John's position did poorly (and considering that despite everything he died with his eyes intact and as emperor is a sign of being far from the worst).

It doesn't seem a specific lack of education or specific traumatic event (I imagine his late childhood was rough, but it's not like say, Basil II's was all sunshine and roses).

And could somebody else realistically have taken power in this time with a 1341 PoD? Would John Kantakouzenos be a contender for the throne if there was no regency issue around John V; if not, does that mean his son Matthew isn’t going to be an issue? What about Alexios III of Trebizond (who might make a claim through his mother, even if he’s only around 10 at the time of the plague)?

I don't see any reason why they absolutely couldn't try for either John or Mathew (and John not being an issue doesn't mean Mathew isn't), Alexios is a maybe.

Anyone not specifically ineligible (like a blind man or an eunuch) popular enough with the army, the city of Constantinople itself, and ideally the church is at least a what if contender -but that's not a guarantee of them being a good ruler, as John Kantcouzenos demonstrated OTL. There really doesn't seem to be a clearly skilled man waiting in the wings as much as varying degrees of "maybe if things go right?"

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

@Elfwine Ok, then instead of trying to cast about for a better ruler, let’s just go with the simple PoD we have thus far -- Androikos III doesn’t die in 1341, and lives long enough to die during the Black Death, leaving his now teenage son John to assume the throne -- and try to determine what realistically happens from there.

How do the Byzantines fare in the 1340’s, without the civil war to distract them? How do they fare in the 1350’s, as a result?

 

[Elfwine]

There's a decent chance of them consolidating things in Greece.

The Black Death is going to still be a hard blow to take. Asia Minor is still just about gone. The army and particularly the navy are very weak, but no civil war is a relief on multiple domestic issues compared to OTL.

I leave the floor to Nuraghe for speculation on what next.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

There's a decent chance of them consolidating things in Greece.

Hm, so they could subdue the Duchy of Athens? Would this mean the Byzantines are in a better defensive position in the event of an attempted Islamic expansion across the Dardanelles?

Asia Minor is still just about gone.

I certainly agree that the Byzantines won't be retaking territory in Anatolia anytime soon, but I do wonder if they can at least manage to keep Orhan from consolidating his gains, maybe supporting other muslim rulers to in the western peninsula that OTL were conquered by the Ottomans after our PoD.

The Black Death is going to still be a hard blow to take... The army and particularly the navy are very weak, but no civil war is a relief on multiple domestic issues compared to OTL.

True.

I leave the floor to Nuraghe for speculation on what next.

@Nuraghe

 

[SodaMan1996]

For the 13th and 14th centuries to be better for the Byzantines, you'd have to prevent the sack of 1204 from happening.

The sack of Constantinople in 1204 was the point of no return for the Byzantine Empire. The empire itself was splintered for several decades.

Even when the empire reunified in 1261, Constantinople was permanently weakened, both militarily and economically.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

For the 13th and 14th centuries to be better for the Byzantines, you'd have to prevent the sack of 1204 from happening.

We're talking about post-1320 PoDs here, for a better 14th Century; "Better 13th Century" is a different thread. Note, we're only looking for the best plausible outcome given these restrictions; the idea they'd be considerably worse than an earlier PoD would allow is kind of the point.

 

[Nuraghe]

unfortunately I can't answer fully now, but I would suggest focusing on facilitating Andronikos III's seizure of power during the civil war of 1321 - 28, and preventing him from dying in 1341 ( since his reign was all in all a success, given that it consolidated the European territories of Rhomania ( annexing parts of Latin Greece ) furthermore, by reducing the damage of the civil war, it could allow resources to be allocated to the relief of Nicaea and Nicomedia which in Otl fell into the hands of the Ottomans in the decade following the end of the conflict within the Empire, Furthermore, John VI Kantakouzenos was one of his most loyal followers, therefore his continued government ( Andronikos ) should limit the antagonism between the patriarch John XIV of Constantinople, the courtier Alexius Apocaucos and Anna of Savoy towards him ( John ) I hope later to be able to be more exhaustive in analyzing my idea

There's a decent chance of them consolidating things in Greece.

The Black Death is going to still be a hard blow to take. Asia Minor is still just about gone. The army and particularly the navy are very weak, but no civil war is a relief on multiple domestic issues compared to OTL.

I leave the floor to Nuraghe for speculation on what next.

Hm, so they could subdue the Duchy of Athens? Would this mean the Byzantines are in a better defensive position in the event of an attempted Islamic expansion across the Dardanelles?

I certainly agree that the Byzantines won't be retaking territory in Anatolia anytime soon, but I do wonder if they can at least manage to keep Orhan from consolidating his gains, maybe supporting other muslim rulers to in the western peninsula that OTL were conquered by the Ottomans after our PoD.

True.

@Nuraghe

So now that I can actually analyze the situation a little, I would propose two important focuses during the civil war of 1321 - 28, the first concerns the figure of Syrgiannes Palaeologus ( who negotiated for both sides, but then ended up assisting Stefan Dusan to conquer part of Macedonia, for which he was then assassinated by Constantinople, once Andronikos III definitively obtained power and was able to concentrate on the European front ) the second instead concerns the survival of Andronikos' first wife ( Adelaide of Brunswick, who died in 1324 ) who was on excellent terms with John Kantakouzenos, compared to Anna of Savoy, who instead looked at him with enormous suspicion, so as to avoid / mitigate the tensions between the court factions which then led to the open clash ( in which the Turkish beilicates also took part for the first time ( who devastated Thrace and southern Greece ) and causing them to quickly gain prominence in power politics in Byzantium ) now as regards how Byzantium could possibly evolve in the years between 1340 and 1350, I can see 3 key points of the foreign policy of Constantinople : the first is to stem the strength of Serbia in this period ( which under Stefan III was the real regional power ( if we limit ourselves to not considering the Hungary of Louis I ), but more due to the sovereign's capabilities than anything else ) perhaps by creating a network of alliances with Bulgaria and Hungary, the second instead concerns Asia Minor, where to maintain the few remaining possessions ( but fundamental from an economic point of view ) I would see Constantinople ending up supporting the Karamanids against the Ottomans and at the same time keeping calm down the claims the Mega Komnenos of Trebizond, propose a matrimonial alliance with them, to conclude a careful diplomatic policy with the Latin powers will be important, both to avoid any ambition to undertake a conquest of the Rhomanoi territories ( mainly Epirus, which was coveted both by Naples but also by Venice and the remaining Frankish - Greek princes ) now probably ATL John V, growing up and gaining experience of government under his father's tutelage, will not become the sovereign that Otl counterpart was ( at best scenario ) but it must be remembered that the Black Death will be an enormous blow to one's abilities ( limited ) of the state, but if the fortress of Gallipoli is not structurally weakened and then handed over to the Turks like Otl ( which technically was easily retaken on behalf of Byzantium by a small crusader force led by the green count of Savoy, only to be "given away" again into the hands of the Ottomans by a pretender to the imperial throne a few years later, therefore with a vaguely more stable Empire , it shouldn't be that difficult to keep it under state control ) , there is a good chance of seeing Byzantium find itself in a slightly better position than Otl ( barring any civil wars, which are not to be ruled out entirely ) especially when Serbia began to fracture internally after Dusan's death in 1355, furthermore I would look for a more important bride and above all outside of the internal power struggles of the state for the future John V ( which was the result of the attempt to pacify the situation after the two rounds of civil war in Otl ), possibly who is considered superpartes by all the participants in the Western schism, to conclude I would still try to play the maritime republics against each other ( also because in OTL Genoa became a serious problem in this period ) but personally I would aim to slightly favor Pisa, rather than the one with less interests or territorial ambitions in the region respect a Venice or Genoa

P.s
I hope I was able to give a satisfactory answer to your questions

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I would propose two important focuses during the civil war of 1321 - 28, the first concerns the figure of Syrgiannes Palaeologus ( who negotiated for both sides, but then ended up assisting Stefan Dusan to conquer part of Macedonia, for which he was then assassinated by Constantinople, once Andronikos III definitively obtained power and was able to concentrate on the European front ) the second instead concerns the survival of Andronikos' first wife ( Adelaide of Brunswick, who died in 1324 ) who was on excellent terms with John Kantakouzenos, compared to Anna of Savoy, who instead looked at him with enormous suspicion, so as to avoid / mitigate the tensions between the court factions which then led to the open clash ( in which the Turkish beilicates also took part for the first time ( who devastated Thrace and southern Greece ) and causing them to quickly gain prominence in power politics in Byzantium )

I don't know much about the first guy, but the second part (Adelaide of Brunswick living longer) absolutely seems like good PoD.

now as regards how Byzantium could possibly evolve in the years between 1340 and 1350, I can see 3 key points of the foreign policy of Constantinople : the first is to stem the strength of Serbia in this period ( which under Stefan III was the real regional power ( if we limit ourselves to not considering the Hungary of Louis I ), but more due to the sovereign's capabilities than anything else ) perhaps by creating a network of alliances with Bulgaria and Hungary, the second instead concerns Asia Minor, where to maintain the few remaining possessions ( but fundamental from an economic point of view ) I would see Constantinople ending up supporting the Karamanids against the Ottomans and at the same time keeping calm down the claims the Mega Komnenos of Trebizond, propose a matrimonial alliance with them, [3?] to conclude a careful diplomatic policy with the Latin powers will be important, both to avoid any ambition to undertake a conquest of the Rhomanoi territories ( mainly Epirus, which was coveted both by Naples but also by Venice and the remaining Frankish - Greek princes )...

[1} Stefan Dusan (ie Stefan IV) was the most successful Serbian ruler of this era, no? Is the Serbian monarchy still likely to enter a period of decline after his death? If so, the 1360's would probably be the period when any outside power (be it the Byzantines, or muslims from Anatolia) try to take advantage. [2] This makes perfect sense to me. What position would the Ottomans be in by, say, 1360 (compared to OTL) if Constantinople was playing this game? [3] Good point as well.

especially when Serbia began to fracture internally after Dusan's death in 1355

Right.

now probably ATL John V, growing up and gaining experience of government under his father's tutelage, will not become the sovereign that Otl counterpart was ( at best scenario ) but it must be remembered that the Black Death will be an enormous blow to one's abilities ( limited ) of the state...

True

but if the fortress of Gallipoli is not structurally weakened and then handed over to the Turks like Otl ( which technically was easily retaken on behalf of Byzantium by a small crusader force led by the green count of Savoy, only to be "given away" again into the hands of the Ottomans by a pretender to the imperial throne a few years later, therefore with a vaguely more stable Empire , it shouldn't be that difficult to keep it under state control ) , there is a good chance of seeing Byzantium find itself in a slightly better position than Otl ( barring any civil wars, which are not to be ruled out entirely )

Oh yeah, that'd be a huge help! Would the absence of a civil war going on at the time be enough to prevent the Byzantines from handing it over, do you think?

furthermore I would look for a more important bride and above all outside of the internal power struggles of the state for the future John V ( which was the result of the attempt to pacify the situation after the two rounds of civil war in Otl ), possibly who is considered superpartes by all the participants in the Western schism, to conclude I would still try to play the maritime republics against each other ( also because in OTL Genoa became a serious problem in this period ) but personally I would aim to slightly favor Pisa, rather than the one with less interests or territorial ambitions in the region respect a Venice or Genoa

The question of who John V marries aside, it does sound fun speculating how this affects the interplay between the Italian Maritime Republics. Would Pisa get more influence vis a vis Genoa and Venice compared to OTL?

I hope I was able to give a satisfactory answer to your questions

Of course! This was an excellent, thoughtful response; thank you.

 

[Beefhammer]

Possible turning points in reverse chronological order:
No civil war that gives the Turks a toehold in Europe
The Catalan Company aren't betrayed
John Tarchaneiotes isn't betrayed
Alexios Philanthropenos succeeds in overthrowing Andronikos II?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

The Catalan Company aren't betrayed
John Tarchaneiotes isn't betrayed
Alexios Philanthropenos succeeds in overthrowing Andronikos II?

All these PoDs are too early (prior to 1320).