A slower twilight: 14th century Byzantine empire and the Balkans

[Marc]

A not too speculative riff...

Some convergence that offsets divergence:

In 1302 Andronikos II is a simple monk buried in some monastery, his son and co-emperor Michael is either with him, or blinded. So...

Roger de Flor collects, with strong encouragement from Alfonso Frederick of Aragon, King of Sicily, thousand of mercenaries, forms the Catalan Company, and since he isn't hired by the Byzantines decides to conquer the principality of Achaia, which upsets a number, mostly French, that he, his men, and his theoretical sovereign, aren't unhappy to upset.
He is successful, not in small part due to his being careful to give allegiance to his king. Success breed success, over the next fifteen years he ends taking over the Duchy of Athens, and the Byzantine holding of Morea. Uniting all of southern Greece.

Ruggero Flores dies in 1320, in bed, Duke of Grecia...

(The mild convergence here is that the Catalan Company did end up conquering the Duchy of Athens in 1311, and some years later a good chunk of Thessaly, the Duchy of Neopatria).


Plausible and reasonable - at least I think so right now. It shouldn't have a major effect on the Byzantine Empire for some time, it might swerve some Italian history though... thoughts?

 

[Marc]

A role model for reforming?

Previous comments about the necessity of tax and other reforms being essential to a 14th century Byzantine empire, surviving better, if not recovering some former glory led to me find in my notes: John Tarchaneiotes. First cousin of Andronikos II, and therefore also a cousin of my Constantine XI (it does seem that just about everyone that mattered in late Byzantine society was related by birth or marriage). In factual history, Tarchaneiotes was sent to Asia Minor after Alexios Philanthropenos failed revolt; around 1298 or so.

John Tarchaneiotes was chosen despite some political issues: the biggest one being that he was an Arsenite. I won't bore you all with the details, suffice to say it goes back the Patriarch Arsenios having excommunicated Michael VIII for having blinded and tonsured John IV Laskaris in 1261. Which made Tarchaneiotes a member of the camp that questioned the legitimacy of the Palaiologos dynasty.
The offset being that apparently most of the involved population of the Anatolian territory still held were also Arsenites, so the new governor would start off being a very popular choice. Governor being the key term; while John Tarchaneiotes seems to have been a competent military commander, his strength apparently was administrative; he knew what the problems were, and how to solve them.
Tarchaneiotes really was good. Nothing like a capable reformer with integrity and enough military talent to keep the Meander valley clear of Turkish raiders to incite the rural magnates, particularly those who were, supposed to be, of the pronoia, to maneuver to get rid of him. Which they did, of course.

Now, imagine Constantine XI effectively using his cousin in Asia Minor, and then over on the European side. Not a full bore reform of the system (reassessment and redistribution of lands, but careful not to antagonize the elite families), but enough to revitalize the armies a bit, and get some decent cash flow for the imperial accounts.

John Tarchaneiotes died sometime around 1304-5. With a better Emperor, he dies full of respect, and honor, and achievement.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

So a full decade of administrative revitalization in the Balkans while the Catalan company doesn't ravage the empire and manages to direct its attention to the Morea; in turn upsetting the Neapolitians and getting them to ignore Romania for the time being. Meanwhile the Asian holdings are better protected, and able to withstand most of the brunt of the various unorganized Ghazi raids.

Well done. The empire is in going to be in a much healthier place by 1350 and despite your initial thoughts against the matter, I am optimistic that it can survive for at least until the next few centuries as a regional power.

 

[Marc]

Brief look at Serbia and Bulgaria

Some early thoughts on the development of the two major Balkan states of the 14th century during the reign of my alternate emperor: Constantine XI, 1292-1306.

Bulgaria:

During the 1290's, having a different, more competent ruler in Constantinople shouldn't have any significant effect on Bulgaria. From 1292-1298, the Tsar of Bulgaria was Smilets, who was married to a niece of Michael VIII Palaiologos. He, and his country were apparently just about completely subject to the Golden Horde during his rule.
(The Byzantine were able to take Northern Thrace from the Bulgarians at this time - I see no reason why it would be any different under Constantine XI.)
In history, he was overthrown in 1298 by a Mongol, Chaka, a son of Nogai Khan - the de facto, informal, ruler for many years of the Horde.
That event, after a very short while, led to the leadership of Bulgaria's best Tsar in a several generations: Theodore Svetoslav (ruled from 1300-1322).

And now it could get a bit complicated. Theodore is ruthless, capable and successful in history. He manages to transform a subjugation to more of an alliance with the Golden Horde (Mongol civil war, he picks the right side, Chaka's head is sent the winner - who appreciates it); he brings his unruly barons firmly under his control; Hungary and Serbia aren't a problem for him during his rule; and he retakes most of Thrace from the Byzantines - in part with the aid of several Mongol regiments.

The Byzantines knew he was a threat from early on. They supported rival claimants, sent an invading army, and of course, failed.

In an alternative scenario, I can see Constantine XI, with a few more troops, a better general or two, managing to hold onto Thrace, but barely*. Being realistic, even with a much better ruler, the early 14th century in the Balkans is very touch and go for the Byzantine Empire.

My take on Serbia to follow shortly.

*Any medieval history buffs care to speculate on whether a heterogeneous quasi-mercenary army of various Greek and Turk elements could defeat a Mongol-Bulgarian army at that time?

 

[Marc]

Serbia in transition?

In both a real and a counter-factual look at the history of Serbia during the era of Constantine XI (1292-1306), the key figure is Stefan Uroš II Milutin who was king of Serbia from 1282-1321.
Stefan Milutin had the luck that all great leaders seem to get, a capable solider, quite good at statecraft, ruthless as most rulers were, and personally depraved.
Part of Milutin's luck (and chief executive skills), was in the development of Serbia's mining industry, most importantly, silver mining. With significant financial and demographic resources (a major population increase), he is able to field armies that can nearly match the Hungarians, in quality and quantity, and are generally superior to whatever the Byzantines had available.

Speaking of demographics, to give you all some perspective, my guesstimates are that the Byzantine population is between 2-2.5 million at this time (higher end if we assume holding onto northwest Anatolia), the Kingdom of Hungry probably as much, Serbia around 1 million, Bulgaria maybe 500-750 thousand, the same for Southern Greece, the Turkish beyliks that largely controlled western Anatolia had approximately a million or so subjects (a majority being former Byzantine citizens).
By comparison: Circa 1300 CE, France has about 15 million, England and Wales about 3+ millions.
These numbers plummet for all during the course of the 14th century...

Even with better military and political leadership, a few thousand more troops, I find it hard to construct a plausible scenario that allows Constantine XI to keep/recover the lands lost to Stefan Uroš II during the 1290's. Perhaps one positive difference is being able to hold onto the Theme of Dyrrhachium - an important city, the only real port the Byzantines were able to cling to on the Adriatic at this time (That wouldn't last: either the Serbs end up getting it, or the Anjou's or the Venetians).

One utterly trivial on the worlds' stage, but very affecting change is while Milutin likely keeps most of his conquered lands from the Byzantines, he isn't going to get Simonis Palaiologoa as his 4th wife in 1299 as part of a peace treaty. In history, Simonis is 5 years old when she is married to the 46 year old Serbian king. Not betrothed, but actually married - over the huge objections of the Patriarch and other clergy at the time, and nearly all of Byzantine society.
We don't know if her father Andronikos II thought that the decencies would be observed and the consummation of the marriage would wait until she was at least legally an adult, or really didn't care - personally I suspect the latter.
Regardless, the brutally worse did happen. Why I stated that Stefan Milutin was depraved - even judged by the ambiguous morality of his times.
Constantine XI had no daughters that we're aware of, and while it's quite possible he did, this particular horror story of his dynasty is not likely to be duplicated.

At any rate, for the Byzantine Empire it's the historical misfortune that the two most powerful Balkan states of the early 14th century were ruled by strong, capable men.
The empire, in the Balkans, gets no real traction from not having Andronikos screwing up routinely.


(In this timeline the major map difference for the Byzantines is their holding the two northwest provinces and further down south to the Meander valley. on the other hand, Southern Greece is in the process of being conquered by the Catalan Company)

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Reasonable, well thought out, and a pleasure to read. Do keep going!

 

[Marc]

A starting timeline: Constantine XI

Below is a basic timeline construction for this counter-factual. Black is generally true/what really happened. Blue indicates what I think are alternative plausible events deriving from the point of departure. Green is more speculative, fanciful.

1292: Andronikos II Palaiologos is deposed in a coup by his younger brother Constantine, who becomes Constantine XI. Andronikos is tonsured and spends the rest of his life in an obscure monastery. His oldest son, at the time Michael IX, is blinded and also shuffled off to a monastery. His second son, Constantine Doukas Komnenos Palaiologos, is castrated and also becomes a monk. Andronikos third son, Theodore and his mother Yolande of Montferrat, manage to escape to Italy. Theodore eventually becomes Marquess of Montferrat.
Demetrios Palaiologos, the youngest son never gets born in this alternate history.
Andronikos's daughters, both legitimate and illegitimate. either enter monasteries or are married off to foreign autocrats.

1293-1295: Alexios Philanthropenos, kept and reasonably trusted by his cousin Constantine XI, crushes the Karesi turkmens - removing a threat that eventually would be nautical as well as on land, and giving the Byzantines a more secure contiguous holding from the very strategic city of Smyrna up to Bithynia.

1296: In his only personally lead military campaign Constantine XI, successfully defeats a Serbian army outside of Dyrrhachium; holding that vital city and surrounding Theme for the empire for a few more decades.
Constantine XI makes his youngest brother, Theodore Komnenos Palaiologos, Despot of Morea.

1296-1302: War with Venice. Constantine XI lacks the naval forces to win. The Byzantine lose a number of islands in the south Aegean that they had only recaptured from the Latins 20 or so years earlier.

1297-1300: Alexios Philanthropenos acknowledges that southwest Asia Minor - Ionia and Caria aren't holdable given his resources. He establishes a fortified defense in depth along the northern side of the Meander river, from Smyrna to Philadelphia.

1302: John Tarchaneiotes manages to eke out a crucial victory against Osman in the Battle of Bapheus. This outcome, mostly, ends the decades long raids-in-force by the Osmanlis into Bithynia; saving the cities of Bursa, Nicea and Nicomedia from their eventual surrender.

1305: Partially accepting the reality of the situation (the lost adjoining coast, the power of the Italian privateers, etc), and partially to screw over the Italians, Constantine "sells" Rhodes to the Order of the Knights Hospitaliers of Saint John of Jerusalem. (4 years earlier than their actual takeover)

1306: Constantine XI, age 45, dies of natural illness, succeeded by his son John V.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Everything looks great. Please continue.

 

[Marc]

the alternate John V (part 1)

To start with, there is very limited amount of real factual history about John Palaiologos.

Born around 1289 CE, he was the only, rather likely only surviving, son of Constantine Palaiologos, and his wife Irene Palaiologina Raoulaina (A second cousin apparently, and of the late imperial elite families - the Raouls). It's unknown whether he had any living sisters, although I would strongly suspect that he did; even given the 50%+ child mortality rate that all classes suffered from, married women had as many offspring as they reasonably could, regardless of station.

Despite the fact that his father was sent off to a monastery in 1292 (the suspected coup attempt that is my point of departure), John gets the ceremonial court title of panhypersebastos in 1305 - probably marking his becoming an official adult.
He marries an "Irene", almost certainly a woman from one of those dozen great clans. We know they have one daughter, named Maria, who, by inference, was born no later than 1312. There is an unnamed son who dies in a battle against the Bulgarians in 1332. Again by inference, that son was likely born no later than 1316 and no earlier than 1306.

By 1325 he was the governor of Thessalonica; a fairly important post. In 1326 he rebels against his uncle, Emperor Andronikos II, joining whatever meager forces he might have had with elements of the considerably more potent army of the Serbian king Stefan Uroš III, who happens to have been married to his daughter Maria in 1322.
John has some early success, plunging through and plundering Macedonia, but quickly seems to have settled for the offered title of Caesar, for whatever reason. He contracts an illness and dies soon after. (An interesting little speculative story could be written just around that.)

In this counter-factual, instead of that life, in 1306, on the death of his father, John Palaiologos becomes John V, Basileus and Autokrator...

 

[Marc]

John V (part 2)

It's often said that character determines destiny, or the other way around, or, perhaps both are true - a feedback loop if you will. In any case, when we don't really have much to go on about character to begin with, and we're creating a different destiny for an historical individual, we have to be especially careful not let our own wishes determine how it all turns out.
(I know, this is going against a lot of "what if", but I'm trying more for some enlightenment with this alternative riff than purely personal entertainment.)

John Palaiologos was a prince of the late Byzantine empire in both worlds. The fact that he was the presumed imperial heir in the counter-factual wouldn't have changed much about his upbringing - in part because of one of the interesting differences between the Byzantine system and the West; that the former, because of political history and religious perspective, never fully developed the monarchical system that ended up prevailing in Western Europe, not at all like the quasi-dynastic system that evolved in the East.

One area that I can comfortably play around with who John is married to. Historically his wife is one of those so typically unknown women, an "Irene"; probably from one of the great aristocratic families.
So, in a bit of nice convergence, why not have John marry instead another "Irene", one that existed, one that married an emperor - the son of Michael IX Palaiologos, who in this swerve, never had the family he has in reality, there is no Andronikos III (all those people, a family line, some noted in history, vanished into imagination); but there it is...

She was born Adelheid of Brunswick around 1293 CE. The daughter of Henry I, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg. She's closely related by blood to just about all of the major Houses of Central Europe: the Welfs, the Wettins, and the Hohenstaufens. In short Adelheid was richly pedigreed, and no doubt as richly dowered. Which is certainly two of the major reasons she becomes the first wife of Andronikos III, and, would make a very appropriate wife for John V.
There are two hesitations: The first being that with Andronikos, in the 6 years of their marriage she only has one child who dies at the age of 2. And, more wondering why she marries very late for a woman of her status; she's around 24-25 when she's wed - it hints of a possible sad personal issue with her? (mental or physical).

Regardless, marry her to John V, some years earlier in this alternate arrangement, say about a decade earlier - A young emperor needs a spouse posthaste, his mother (who might briefly be his regent) would make certain of it. Adelheid converts to Orthodoxy and changes her first name to Irene (standard operating procedure of the age).
Lets say she gives John V the two children he had in reality, and dies in 1324, two years before her husband.

Yes, in the long scheme, it doesn't matter that much, but I happen to like elegant small details...

 

[Marc]

John V (part 3)

John V is about 17 years old when his father, Constantine XI dies. Likely, and with one of those neat historical coincidences* there would have been a brief regency until he turned 18. According to Byzantine custom, the empress-dowager would head the regency - a reflection of both the marginally better regard that some elite women enjoyed in the Empire, and the natural assumption that a mother is best suited to look out for the interests of a son (ignoring the infamous history of the Empress Irene).

Without the inevitable ironic sense that we would feel, John V probably would consider the condition of the state seriously worse than what his grandfather, Michael VIII had left. The south has been lost: The Morea conquered easily enough by the Catalan company; the south Aegean isles that had been regained by Michael VIII from the Latins, taken away by the Venetians; the important island of Rhodes, conceded for a token amount to the Knights Hospitallier; and the southwest of Anatolia evacuated, along with much of its population because it's indefensible. In the west the Serbians have pushed further down the Balkans, although for the moment held. The best that can be said is that the Bulgarians haven't made any serious inroads, and the Anatolian northwest, key to protecting the heart of the Empire, Constantinople is currently secure.

The financial situation is about the same: improvements in tax assessments and some redistribution of lands, a mild shifting of the burdens, is offset by the lost provinces and the increasing stranglehold on trade by the Italians.
Not anything of a navy, and perhaps no more than regular 8-10,000 soldiers available for field service (probably divided half and half between Asia and Europe at this time).

What John V can't know is that that the real world situation was worse, and going to get far worse than what is likely to happen in his lifetime.

Now, a small speculation that both diverges and converges some history:
The Epirote state had both declined into the southwest corner of Greece and become a sometime vassal of the Byzantines.
At the time that John V takes the throne in 1306-7, Thomas I Komnenos Doukas (born 1285 - died 1318) rules Epirus, and a cousin (of course) through his mother, Anna Palaiologina Kantakouzene - and she is the real ruler. (In general, the Palaiologia women were far superior to the men of that clan.)
Eprirus is under major political, and subsequent military pressure from Charles II, King of Naples (an inheritance issue)
In real history for Thomas an alliance was arranged by his mother and her Byzantine kin by having him marry Anna Palaiologina, the daughter of Michael IX Palaiologos in 1307.

My spin: Have Thomas marry a presumed to exist, if unknown, sister of John V. And because of that connection with a "better" branch of the Palaiologos consequentially doesn't get assassinated in 1318 by his nephew, Nicholas Orsini, and the Komnenos Doukas dynasty lasts until at least 1359, giving the Byzantines a secure flank in the Balkans, for some decades. Given my understanding of the characters involved (those that we can really know of) and the evolving situation, I think it's reasonable.



*Constantine X's son was also 17 when his father died, and a one year regency before he took over as Michael VII Doukas in 1071,

 

[Marc]

The generation of John V

For the people of the the 13th century, the 20 years of ruling I'm giving John V really was a generation. From Purple-born to the poorest peasant, if you survived childhood, you got married in your mid-teens; if you were lucky, became grandparents in your 30's, and likely die in your 40's to early 50's. Your life expectancy was only a few years better if you became a monk - male or female. Their 20 years is our 30, at best.

I'd like to discuss what doesn't happen around the Byzantine empire from about 1305-1325.
Anatolia first:

1. Osman and his people doesn't have much success against the Byzantine forces in Bithynia. He doesn't capture Brusa, and he doesn't expand to the Sea of Marmara on one side, and north up the Sakarya river on the other - effectively smothering the Byzantines out of Asia Minor. He doesn't get therefore as many Ghazi fighters and various other migrants who are drawn to his victories over the Byzantines. His descendents will have a slower harder slog...

2. The Karasid beylik (or emirate if you prefer), doesn't hold and expand in Mysia, and establishing a strong naval threat on the Aegean and the Dardanelles - because they have been destroyed/wrecked in this divergence.

3. The Beylik of Aydin - in history a major player in this theatre for nearly a century, they don't capture the Meander valley, in fact they get trashed; keeping them a fairly minor player. This also applies to the other beyliks of Ladik and Sarukhan - frontier states that settled on the Aegean coast; they drift off into being assimilated even earlier than in history.

4. A question mark about what doesn't happen to the Mentes Beylik. In history they were perhaps the most important of the coastal Turkmen emirates. Controlling Caria in southwest Anatolia - the traditional resource and manpower base for the old Byzantine navy. In history, they were a serious problem for the various Christian states around the Aegean. In fact, they took Rhodes for some years before the Knights showed up.
In this alternate, with Rhodes early being transferred to the Hospitallers, the question is whether a even more powerful Mentes is able to take the island in the early 1300's from the Knights...

 

[Marc]

The Greek Archipelgo

The myriad islands of the Aegean, of which at least a couple of hundred are and were inhabited during the last several thousand years seem to be overlooked as an important piece of late Byzantine history, especially by those playing with alternative lines - with the occasional exception of Crete. What those islands are now, very picturesque but relatively tiny populations dependent primarily on tourism and fishing is far from what they were during the 11th through 16th centuries, particularly the larger ones. Many were densely populated, more so than in contemporary times, and majors centers of Byzantine manufacturing and commerce. For example, Rhodes, that I have passing into hands of the Knights Hospitallers a few years earlier than they actually did, probably accounted for itself at the time it finally slipped permanently away from the Byzantines for about 1-2% of the total population of the Empire, and conceivably 2-3% of its GDP. That may not sound like much, but multiply that by ten, an order of magnitude, and you get a good idea what losing the bulk of the Aegean forever meant to the restored Empire. Eventually losing islands like Chios and Lesbos weren't trivial parts of the death spiral.

The bad news under my alternate is that while Constantine XI and his son John V would continue to lose what they lost in real history - the south Aegean islands, the Dodecanese group - they and their state benefit from not having to deal the rise of Turkish privateers in Aegean during the early decades of the 14th century. And for at least some time, no takeovers of those islands in the north, near the sea lanes to Constantinople. This, at least economically can mean a lot. It's not as important historically as avoiding the devastating civil wars, that, inevitably, bring the Osmanlis over to Europe (and if not them, likely another Turkmen emirate), but can give them a chance to create a small fleet - nothing that really can beat the Venetians and Genoese, but enough to successfully enhance the security of the capital.

 

[Marc]

Some notes on the Balkans 1306-1326

Just a few projections and ruminations about how the Balkans could look during the years of my imagined John V.

In my cute and I think not too implausible, speculation of having John V marry Adelheid of Brunswick, becoming his empress "Irene", and their having the two surviving children, a girl and boy, (that we know he in actuality did have), does create one of those cloudy divergences that makes alternate histories so chaotically complex. To wit in this case: Different woman, different wife, and more importantly a different mother. For her children, think different natures and nurtures; leading to different characters.

[This is an consequence of changing history that seems to be largely ignored - the intimate effects that define personality: biological and social hereditary backgrounds, besides life experiences as the real operands.]

One specific question would be who and how would be Maria Palaiologina, known daughter of John, who was married and become the consort of Stephen Uroš III, king of Serbia from 1322-1331.
For hopeful fans of an alternative history of the Byzantine Empire, this matters - Stephan was historically a good ally of the empire during his tenure as Tsar of the Serbs. With the right wife, that alliance might be even more solid, with the wrong one, it can get sticky for John V and his successor, if simply because militarily, the Serbs are the strongest power in the Balkans (outside of perhaps my alternative Catalan company state in southern Greece).
For the Byzantines to successfully navigate through the 14th century, what was really the unrecoverable collapse of the state, they would need besides luck and some military victories, all of their once vaunted diplomatic skills - political, financial, and personal.

[Another reluctance to be discussed: how history is as determined by what happened behind bedroom doors as on battlefields]

 

[Halagaz]

Regarding Stephen Urosh III's mostly good relationship with the Byzantines, its primary cause actually goes back further than his marriage with Maria Palaiologina, to 1314 - when, after a failed revolt against his father, Stephen was exiled with his wife and son; he was given shelter in Constantinople by Andronikos II, and he stayed the Emperor's ally out of friendship and gratitude.

In this scenario, the Emperor around 1314. will not be Andronikos but John V; if he has the wisdom to accept Stephen and treat him well at the court, the ties between the future Serbian King and the Byzantine Emperor should be strong even before Stephen's first wife dies and the opportunity arises for another marriage. The alliance would be even closer, and earlier assured, if the Byzantines help Stephen win the civil war against his brother and first cousin more quickly (though this civil war in Serbia is not inevitable, it is very likely to occur, in 1321 or so); as in this scenario the Empire isn't plagued by a civil war itself, it presumably wouldn't find it hard to interfere and provide at least a little assistance.

With this the Byzantine Empire should have a friendly north-western border for at least a decade, maybe two; unfortunately the biggest danger to that friendly relationship would not be Maria's personal qualities (though they could potentially play a part), but the pressure of the Serbian nobility, which was rather eager for expansion into Byzantine lands in this period. And the behavior of whatever Emperor succeeds John V might further complicate the relationship as well.