Perhaps, but, you should consider the probably reactions to such title being bestowed to him... Cause, for one, as was mentioned before, it would cause the enmity of the HRE and most probably from the Papacy, cause, both, if for different reasons would fear (either sincerely or for political convenience sake) any possible 'Roman ambitions' from Alexandros and that he would want to target Rome...
The eagle's left head
- Thread starter Lascaris
- Start date
I don't see many in the Latin world acknowledging a western Imperial title granted by Ioannis V.
And speaking of which, who at this point has the nominal title of the Latin Emperor of Constantinople (or, formally, “Emperor of Romania”)? Might as well ask rn.
On the other hand, that's not like anyone in the East(teen Roman Empire) did aknowledge either the imperial title granted by the Pope to Charlemagne and his successors, or more recently, the Latin Empire's crown.
Two can play that game I think. An ambitious Alexandros II...
in reality technically from Nicephorus I onwards, the imperial title was recognized to the Franks and their direct successors ( it is confirmed again by the Macedonian dynasty, just note that Basil II was referring to Otto III, Caesar of the West, and wanted him to marry Zoe porphyrogenita, come on, Manuel I himself tries to get the Pope to obtain his candidacy for the title of HRE in 1170s, and in previous years he had tried to organize a marriage between one of his nieces and the son of Conrad III, which would then materialize with Philip of Swabia and Irene Angela ) simply Constantinople reserved for itself the use of the name " of the Romans " ( or at least to be formally the main Augustus Emperor as opposed to Ceasar in the West who was the minor one ) , the non-recognition occurred when relations were more tense between the two courts ( as between Frederick I and Isaac II, who called each other in a derogatory manner simple Rexes ), now certainly the relations in this TL will not be exactly excellent, given that the Despots technically descend from the Stauffen, but honestly neither of the two powers represents a concrete threat for the other ( Syracuse has no concrete interest that goes beyond Amalfi, while the current HRE, they must first settle things in Germany, and then try again to form a vague administrative system in Northern Italy ( even indirectly ), but with the main supporters of the Guelph cause ( the Angevins and in partly Venice ) in disarray, with the Ghibelline party instead finding itself in a better position than Otl ( both with the Scaligeri, Visconti, Genoa, Giovanni di Vico, Aquileia, the same Cola di Rienzo etc ) I can see Charles IV deciding to make a new visit in loco, for the rest I don't see this enmity continuing, indeed it could happen that further down the line there could be a marriage between the two entity
P.s
I would like to remind you that Syracuse already holds a series of royal titles, including that of Sicily ( thanks to the possession of Palermo, the ancient capital of the Altavilla ) and I can claim Epirus and kingdom of Thessaloniki
Last edited:
Of course you can proclaim your own but a title not bestowed by a higher up might not get recognised by neighbours, is less prestigious and also could make some people mad. (Like the HRE Emperor who was recently crowned King of Italy). Proclaiming your own empire could send the wrong message here.
Proclaiming a Kingdom is less riskier but it's kinda not done in Europe at that point and a self proclaimed title is less prestigious than a bestowed one.
I think a good parallel to the Despotate is Burgundy in that it's de facto independent but de jure part of an Empire and another Kingdom (and both are divided, one by france/lorraine, one by the med). And burgundy at their highest point didnt dare that.
I think the best option is to recover from war, prepare for the end of the truce with Naples, conquer them and make some deal with Louis where they maybe get the sicilian Kingship in exchange for support vs venice or so.
I would argue that the norm was NOT to have a ‘higher up’ bestow the title on you. Most of the kingdoms of Europe like Denmark,Scotland, Sweden,England, Norway,Asturias(and the rest of the little Spains) etc started off as petty kingdoms and didn’t having their regal titles bestowed by a ‘higher’ up. People will eventually recognise you due to your strength and the desire to have you as an ally. I would argue that having a ‘higher’ power ’bestow’ kingship on you is a VERY bad idea if you have sufficient strength. Letting someone bestow the title on you often de jure makes you their vassal.
The situations are not comparable. The Despotate has gained de jure recognition of their independence from their previous feudal liege, so they are not vassals of anyone really. There are no legal grounds to stop them from acclaiming themselves kings, unlike Burgundy since as you stated they are vassals to both France and the HRE. If they want to be king, they can only be kings in the HRE and on the Emperor’s terms.
Last edited:
pls don't ban me
Monthly Donor
Genoa was pretty chill as a country compared to Venice. the policy was "as long as you give me the right to trade and even benefits compared to other we're friends". they never went for full conquests but simply a port here and there. the biggest territories acquired were Corsica and Sardinia which one might agree to see them as the Genoese backyard.
Venice on the other hand went for full conquest when presented the opportunity.
None of which interest the Despotate as Lascaris said.
The title of King of Sicily is still held by Louis, and the Lascarids have not staked a claim on it, even if they can by virtue of their Hohenstauffen lineage, and not just because they conquered Palermo; plus, that's a title also claimed by Louis of Hungary, and thence not worth another powerful enemy. And any royal title in the west can only be granted by the Pope or the 'Holy Roman' Emperor, neither of whom the Lascarids are desiring to owe their crown to.
King of Thessalonica ? By right of conquest as well, Prince of Achaea, Duke of Athens and Naxos, Palatine Counts of Cephalonia , Counts of Salona, Marquess of Bodonitsa... Latin titles going back to the 4th Crusade, not particularly liked by the Vatatzes-Lascarid Despots or any Greek in general I think. They'd be rather putting Venice to the sack than bringing up any of those titles; the Principality of Achaea was a convenient fiction for Angevin-Lascarid relations, and which the Lascarids had methodically emptied of all its meaning, along with the Frankish nobility on the fields of Mantineia in 1308.
As for Epirus, I guess you mean the Despotate of Epirus, but since in the Byzantine fashion, the title of Despot is attached to the holder and not to the land held, it's not relevant since Alexandros II is already a Despot.
EDIT : Besides, since 1341, the Byzantines have lost Macedonia, Epirus, what they held of Thessaly, and now they are about to lose Thrace to the Ottomans. The Katepanate of Hellas alone would dwarf out what's left of the Byzantine Empire by this point, so the Despotate as a whole.
If you want real ambition, Alexandros II might as well take Ioannis V's crown as his, or at least replace the Kantakouzenos family as co-emperors and make Constantinople a satrapy of Lascarid Hellas.
Last edited:
I would argue that the opinions of the pope and the HRE are totally irrelevant as far as the Lascarid declaring themselves kings are concerned. As long as the Lascarids are not staking a claim on the HRE, the HRE wouldn’t bother with them, and indeed they are in no position to do so deep in Southern Italy. The Pope was already out for Lascarid blood and is currently occupied with other affairs, so antagonising him by declaring yourself king isn’t gonna hurt either. Crucially, we are in the period where all these other kings wanted to weaken the political authority of both the HRE and the Pope, so these kings would not bother with their opinion if the Lascarids managed to establish cordial if not strong relations with them. That Alexandros has two daughters is a good way to establish diplomatic recognition with some of the stronger powers.I also see no reason why the HRE wouldn’t necessarily recognise(not bestow kingship) the Lascarids as kings either.
Last edited:
Diplomatically and culturally, it does. Even if the Lascarids don't care, all these other states in western Europe do at a degree, and these, Syracuse can't ignore.
Besides, I believe 'King ' (rex) is a title tied to the western 'latin' political culture, while the Lascarid Despotate is very much Greek, Byzantine to its core: we have a Despotate of the Two Sicilies and Hellas, not a Duchy of Syracuse, Calabria, and so on (cf Part 7).
The other states would not likely stringently obey to said ‘rule’ for the same reasons I articulated. We are in the period where papal and Holy Roman Imperial authority was at one of it’s lowest points.The pope was literally just a plaything for the French and many states try to shrug off the pope’s claims of temporal authority. Kingship is certainly not tied to Latin political culture. It exists in Greece as well. The Greco-Romans deliberately call lesser rulers ‘Rex‘as well. Many kingdoms like Denmark etc were kingdoms before they even embraced Christianity properly.As for why the despotate calls itself a despotate? It’s actually a colloquial term. There’s no such thing as a Despotate of Two Sicilies. The title of despot isn’t even a hereditary one.In actual legal terms, the ‘Despotate’ was the Duchies of Syracuse,Calabria and the Principality of Achaea plus some other lands.The Lascarids derived their legal authority from these titles, not despot. The people follow the Lascarids mainly because of Latin tradition under the belief that the Lascarids are the true heirs of Frederick II, not because they are the descendants of a ‘Greek’ ruler or Byzantine political culture.
Last edited:
Well, to be fair to the Venetians, the Genoese did the same in the 14th century. It is just that the Genoese were usually acting as individuals while the Venetians expanded as a central state. We cannot blame the Venetians for being more organized and with better institutions. And there were a lot of occasions when the Genoese failed to their endeavors. One example is the attempt to purchase Navarino with its superb natural harbor: if they had succeeded they would have had the best harbor in the region and could blockade Modon and Coron and the venetian hold over the "Eyes of the Republic" would have been unsustainable. Now of course Navarino is held by Syracuse...
And there are other examples, like an attempt to establish themselves at the bay of Kassiopi in Corfu and Durazzo.
The big difference between the two cities came afterwards due to the course each followed: The Genoese focused on banking while the Venetians acquired a large mainland state. Another factor was that Genoa was so often under the control of foreign powers.
By the way, the venetian greek colonies were important in terms of naval manpower. We know that in the 15th century, Corfu could man 2 galleys. Modon and Coron could provide another 2, with most of the mariners not locals but Latins from the region ( I guess from the Principality of Achaea and the County Palatine of Cephalonia). Napflio and Negroponte provided 1 galley each. The maximum contribution of Crete was in 1467 when the crews for 6-8 galleys and a similar number of naves were recruited at the island. Crete also provided 500 crossbowmen. Then there is the Duchy of Naxos: in 1329 it provided 4 galleys to Andronikos to recover Chios.
Burgundy is not a bad comparison I think but with a somewhat important caveat. House Vatatzes, conveniently or inconveniently depending on time falls somewhere in-between Western and Eastern dynastic traditions. Getting a royal title in the west? The pope or Holy Roman emperor are needed. Become basileus in the east? Find the guy some purple shoes and raise him on a shield.
Domestically, you can call yourself whatever you wanted,but you are even less likely to be seen as a basileus by everyone else unless you take Constantinople. Look at how many states entertained the Serbian/Bulgarian leaders’ pretensions to be Basileus for instance. It‘s far more acceptable for a ruler to see you as an equal than as a superior. Ultimately, all these fancy titles are meaningless unless other people recognise you.A lot of this is based on pragmatism ,diplomatic horse trading and fear of violence.
Last edited:
pls don't ban me
Monthly Donor
on the Bulgarian side only Simeon and maybe his son Petar were taken seriously as Tsars by the rest of europe.
Even someone like Kalojan who was a boogeyman in the Balkans wasn't recognized as Tsar but like Rex/King
That was the point. If the idea that you cannot call yourself a Rex is due to the idea that other people would not recognise it, then the idea that other people would recognise you as Basileus because some people put you on a shield and that you wore some purple boots is even more absurd. Not even Simeon was taken seriously as an 'emperor'. Constantinople revoked their recognition as soon as they were out of the woods, and the Latin West barely recognised Constantinople, let alone a tin pot 'emperor' like Simeon(he's a strong ruler don't take me wrong, but it's kind of absurd for a someone ruling a realm of his size to declare himself an emperor when the King of France for instance didn't). Also, calling yourself a basileus is tantamount to calling yourself a Rex or Emperor. The Latin rulers recognised the title as equivalent to emperor at best and Rex at it's worst.
Last edited:
pls don't ban me
Monthly Donor
to be fair, the ERE waited for Simeon to die before daring to say " he wasn't an emperor" due to all the trauma he caused them in his reign 🤣🤣