Could the Byzantine Empire have survived?

[Byzantine fanatic]

In 1261, the city of Constantinople was captured by an army belonging to the Empire of Nicaea. This little state was an Aegean kingdom founded by Greeks fifty years earlier.

Up until this point, Nicaea had been doing very well for itself, politically, economically and socially. But from the moment they occupied Constantinople, it seems the good fortune of Nicaea began to run out.

By the year 1300, nearly all the territory of the old Empire of Nicaea had been overrun by the Turks. By 1337, the last Byzantine outpost in western Anatolia was gone. Only Trebizond, far off to the east, remained independent.

Could things have gone differently? Could the Byzantines have held onto western Anatolia? What if the lands of the Empire of Nicaea had not been lost to the Turks?

 

[Sevarics]

Wasn't it that if they didn't focus on Constantinople but instead on Anatolia that they could have done better at pushing back the Turks?

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

Wasn't it that if they didn't focus on Constantinople but instead on Anatolia that they could have done better at pushing back the Turks?

Yes, exactly!

Seems like the city offered no real gain, but it cost huge amounts of money to rebuild the ruins and to defend it against western attack. It hardly seems worth it.

Much better to focus on Anatolia. If they could have retaken Sinop, for example, they might have been able to link up with Trebizond. They may even have been able to profit from the Mongol attack on the Seljuks to regain Anatolian lands for Byzantium...

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Yes, almost certainly. And there's a number of PODs to be able to have the Byzantines shift their resources to Anatolia instead of Europe.

Personally, I think it was Charles I of Sicily's invasion which really exhausted the empire's resources and allowed the Turkish emirates to push as quickly as they did.

Now, the easiest way to prevent this in my opinion in your scenario would be to have the Bulgarians do better during the reign of Kaloyan and really cement their control over Greece. The recently established Latin principalities are broken and absorbed by the Bulgarians (although I have serious doubts that the Bulgarians would take Constantinople) and the Byzantines manage to snatch Thrace and the Capital back from the battered Latin Empire.

From then, the Byzantines can't afford expand their resources against the large and powerful neighbor across the straits, and will stay put until they see an opportunity, which they will get when the Mongols come in and smash the Seljuqs, causing a massive implosion of the sultanate. With a couple decades of divide and conquer, the plateau can be retaken without too much effort.

 

[Urban fox]

The Byzantines also need to avoid the OTL civil wars that turned ''decline'' into ''fall''. In the 14th century.

Shifting focus to Europe isnt a problem in itself if the small Greek states fold soon after the retaking of the capital with little real fighting as the Despotate of Epirus did OTL years later. That puts the Greek heartland back under Byzantine control.

With a couple of lucky breaks such as avoiding civil strife or war with Serbia & Bulgaria. the Empire could mop up a few of the weak Beylik states after the Mongols decimate SeljukTurks.

 

[Draeger]

Kill the Ottomans in their cradle and prevent the rise of a similarly ambitious dynasty and sure, they can survive. I voted 'no' before I read the OP, misunderstood the premise.

 

[Xgentis]

It would need quite a lot of POD to do it.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

Wasn't it that if they didn't focus on Constantinople but instead on Anatolia that they could have done better at pushing back the Turks?

Partially, but a big part of it was the lack of legitimacy of the Palaiologoid Dynasty in Anatolia in the closing years of the 13th century. Michael VIII had overthrown the Laskarid Dynasty, who were really popular in the East because they were seen as the true saviors of the Empire-in-Exile. The Laskarids were known for supporting lowborn and peasants over the aristocracy and, combined with Theodoros's epilepsy, led to a noble rebellion, led by Michael Palaiologos. He would blind Theodoros's son and heir John.

Michael VIII reign would be shrouded in religious controversy with Michael's attempt to create a union between East and West, that would be dominated by the West. This would pretty much alienate him from the rest of the Empire and even elements of his own family.

Combine this with the wrecking of imperial finances to restore Constantinople and to keep the Empire's enemies at arms length would leave the Empire vulnerable to what would happen under Andronikos II.

Also, if you wish to see an attempt at a TL where the Empire survives Post-1282: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=361744

 

[Daztur]

The Mongols create a big window of opportunity if the Byzantines are ready to take advantage of it.

 

[ByzantineLover]

To me, the post-Fourth Crusade empire could have survived if Theodore II Laskaris hadn't died when he did. While I don't know much about Theodore's mindset, and while I don't think the Romans would have become a superpower like they do in 'Age of Miracles', I do think that they could have retaken Epirus, Athens, Achaea and maybe Lycia at the most.

In terms of a capital, Nicaea was just the de jure capital, the de facto being either Nymphaeum or Magnesia. It's just as likely Constantinople could end up being the de jure capital but with the de facto capital being somewhere else on the Sea of Marmara like Nicomedia or Chalcedon. Probably the former since Chalcedon was badly damaged during the Fourth Crusade.

 

[machine3589]

But if they don't take back Constantinopole, then can they really be considered the "Byzantine" Empire? Wouldn't they just be remembered as the "Empire of Nikaea" in history while the Byzantine Empire becomes the state that died in the Fourth Crusade and was never revived again?

 

[Tjakari]

But if they don't take back Constantinopole, then can they really be considered the "Byzantine" Empire? Wouldn't they just be remembered as the "Empire of Nikaea" in history while the Byzantine Empire becomes the state that died in the Fourth Crusade and was never revived again?

A capitol does not a state make, just because all the bureaucracy is no longer concentrated in that particular point on the map doesn't mean that the Empire is any less valid. It'd be like cutting off your arm and saying you're a different person for it. Why we entertain the thought at all can only be explained by the Empires downward spiral OTL; if they survived we wouldn't bat an eye at that period between 1204 to 1261.

A lot of things died in the fourth crusade, a lot of things died when the Arabs took Syria and Egypt and a lot of things died when the barbarians sacked Rome centuries before. The state remained the same, and if they survived history would remember them as they were and as they would be as Rome and nothing less.

 

[Zorqal]

A capitol does not a state make, just because all the bureaucracy is no longer concentrated in that particular point on the map doesn't mean that the Empire is any less valid. It'd be like cutting off your arm and saying you're a different person for it. Why we entertain the thought at all can only be explained by the Empires downward spiral OTL; if they survived we wouldn't bat an eye at that period between 1204 to 1261.

A lot of things died in the fourth crusade, a lot of things died when the Arabs took Syria and Egypt and a lot of things died when the barbarians sacked Rome centuries before. The state remained the same, and if they survived history would remember them as they were and as they would be as Rome and nothing less.

Constantinople kind made Byzantium, well Byzantium especially in the final days. Its so tied to the identity that its changed without it. At least thats my thinking. That's why I don't consider Byzantium to be the Roman Empire. Once they split into East and West, and then Rome was lost to the Goths, the basic identity of the Empire was changed from Rome (or at least Eastern Rome), to something strikingly different (and more Greek). I'll admit, if Constantinople was lost, but Nicaea was kept, it wouldn't be as stark a change as the East-West split, but it'd be different enough. Even if the Emperors claimed continuity from Byzantium, or even from Rome, to modern historians at least, it would probably be a different entity.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

In terms of a capital, Nicaea was just the de jure capital, the de facto being either Nymphaeum or Magnesia.

That's interesting, I never knew that! I looked up those two cities and was amazed to learn about it. Nymphaeum appears to have been the preferred winter residence of the Laskarid emperors, while the imperial treasury and the imperial mint were kept at Magnesia (now called Manisa).

This makes me wonder, why is it called the Empire of Nicaea? Do you have any more info about this?

I'll admit, if Constantinople was lost, but Nicaea was kept, it wouldn't be as stark a change as the East-West split, but it'd be different enough. Even if the Emperors claimed continuity from Byzantium, or even from Rome, to modern historians at least, it would probably be a different entity.

That's an interesting point. For me, I kind of view it that way already - i.e. the "Byzantine Empire" that retook Constantinople in 1261 was really just the Empire of Nicaea. Although historians tend to start calling it the "Byzantine Empire" after 1261, it could at least be argued that really the Byzantine Empire had died in 1204. The armies and the the resources of the 1261 empire were really those of the Empire of Nicaea.

On the other hand, it is true that from the moment Constantinople was captured, the empire's focus shifted away from Anatolia, with fatal consequences. I've often thought that the recapture of Constantinople was by far the worst thing that ever happened to the Empire of Nicaea.

 

[el t]

Byzantine Empire

The fate of Asia Minor was pretty much determined at the battle of Myriocephalon in 1176. It assured that there would always be a strong Turkish presence in Asia Minor. Once the Turks unify, the remaining Byzantine territories are doomed, whether the central government is at Nicea or Constantinople.

 

[Napoléon Caesar Augustus]

if they survived history would remember them as they were and as they would be as Rome and nothing less.

I'm not sure. Even when it existed Westerners liked to call it the Empire of the Greeks or whatever. I don't see why we would be kinder to it if it survived longer.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

The fate of Asia Minor was pretty much determined at the battle of Myriocephalon in 1176. It assured that there would always be a strong Turkish presence in Asia Minor. Once the Turks unify, the remaining Byzantine territories are doomed, whether the central government is at Nicea or Constantinople.

Not really; see how the Mongols imploded the Seljuq state into a host of small beyliks that as happy to fight each other as they were the Byzantines. Nicea managed to hold them off up until they decided to expand in Europe, and Nicea had itself half the territory of the empire before the Fourth Crusade and around 40% of its wealth. (Which ofc, the empire at 1204 had even less resources, money and manpower than Andronicus' Empire had in 1183)

All that's needed is for a slow, gradual expansion and constant campaigns ala John II for Anatolia to be reconquered.

 

[el t]

Byzantine Empire

Not really; see how the Mongols imploded the Seljuq state into a host of small beyliks that as happy to fight each other as they were the Byzantines. Nicea managed to hold them off up until they decided to expand in Europe, and Nicea had itself half the territory of the empire before the Fourth Crusade and around 40% of its wealth. (Which ofc, the empire at 1204 had even less resources, money and manpower than Andronicus' Empire had in 1183)

All that's needed is for a slow, gradual expansion and constant campaigns ala John II for Anatolia to be reconquered.

I compare the Nicean state to the emirate of Granada in Spain. It survived as long as the Christian states were divided. Once they united, it fell.

 

[FilipovsFolly]

I compare the Nicean state to the emirate of Granada in Spain. It survived as long as the Christian states were divided. Once they united, it fell.

I agree with this. Maybe if you can kill off Osman and keep any other Beylik from uniting turkish anatolia, you can pull it off.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

I compare the Nicean state to the emirate of Granada in Spain. It survived as long as the Christian states were divided. Once they united, it fell.

Except Nicea is far stronger than Granada was proportionately and the Turkish Beyliks were far more divided than the Christian Kingdoms in Iberia ever were. The instant the Mongols come Nicea has a window of opportunity to survive.