“Theodore Laskaris did not change history and his story was largely a
dead end. One of the main lessons to draw has to do precisely with the way
his life and work came to an abrupt conclusion. A series of hypothetical
“what-if” questions arise, which in turn raise unsettling questions about the
making and logic of dominant historical narratives. Would Theodore
Laskaris have been able to crush the power of his aristocratic opponents
had he lived longer? Would he have modified his policies had he succeeded
in retaking Constantinople? Would he have presided over the recapture
of Constantinople so soon, given that he had discharged and disgraced
the fortunate general who accomplished its reconquest, Alexios Stratego-
poulos? And what would have been the consequences for the history of the
Byzantine and the eastern Mediterranean world if Theodore had not died
prematurely and if the Laskaris dynasty remained in power? None of these
counterfactual questions can, of course, be given an answer. Historians
prefer, rightly, not to ask them, lest they damage the foundations and
credibility of their craft. After all, history is about the past as it happened,
not about the past as it could have happened. Yet the unique life and legacy
of Theodore Laskaris have this special quality about them, that they inspire
us to imagine alternative histories. His story and its aftermath make us
ponder the complexity of events, the role of contingency, and the way in
which dominant narratives have come to be constructed, creating in the
process the illusion of teleology and inevitability. This illusion is all the
more powerful in studying the premodern past, because the temptation to
focus on historical processes and impersonal motive forces is stronger on
account of the limitations of the surviving evidence. That history did not
happen differently does not mean, however, that it could not have
happened differently. We view the past with hindsight, but this privileged
position does not always work to our advantage. It can impoverish our
perspective and leads us to lose sight of the broad horizon of multiple and
alternative paths to the future that once lay open. These paths were very
much alive in the dreaming minds of individuals who felt and thought,
lived and died, just as we do today.”
(ANGELOV, Dimiter. The Byzantine Hellene: The Life of Emperor Theodore Laskaris and Byzantium in the Thirteenth Century.
Harvard University Press, 2019, p. 229-230)
I thought the readers and the author of this timeline would appreciate the closing remarks of the current leading scholar on Theodore II in his latest work, the emperor’s biography: a call for alternate history.
