The eagle's left head

[Avrorrange]

Why not the og went Constantinople fall to the laskaris

I found it weird that you would recruit heavy shock infantry from the English when that wasn’t really what they specialised in(at least after Norman Conquest).Given how famous the English longbow have been however, it doesn’t seem like a bad idea to recruit a permanent regiment of English longbow-men like the Royal Company of archers. Plenty of them fought as mercs in Italy during this period.Alternately, there’s the Swiss…who are beginning to gain fame. Not really sure about the Nordics.The Laskarids also seemed to be quite fond of the Cumans, so that is also an option. Finally, you can always go reverse-janissary. A mixture of everything may be the best choice to prevent one group from getting too prominent.

 

[X Oristos]

Finally, you can always go reverse-janissary

Janissaries are very very difficult for a christian state. They were basically slaves/property of the Sultan and also part of the Sultan's household. The concept is not that different from the Mamluks. Likewise, the practice of a "tax" in children would be quite alien.

The only source of Cumans is Hungary and they won't part with their light cavalry. The rest of the Cumans have been integrated in the "Tatars" of the Golden Horde and it would be very tricky to utilize them.

I think the most plausible varangian equivalent is that of the English longbowmen you mention. By now they are well-known in Italy and Sicily has economic ties with England, importing wool and woolen textiles and exporting spices, wine, silks and alum. There is also the fact that the Lascarids are hostile to France, the Blanche wedding withstanding. Moreover, the English have been supporting Castille against Aragon and that's another plus. A unit of English longbowmen can become what the Swiss Guard was for the Ancien Regime.

 

[Avrorrange]

Janissaries are very very difficult for a christian state. They were basically slaves/property of the Sultan and also part of the Sultan's household. The concept is not that different from the Mamluks. Likewise, the practice of a "tax" in children would be quite alien.

The only source of Cumans is Hungary and they won't part with their light cavalry. The rest of the Cumans have been integrated in the "Tatars" of the Golden Horde and it would be very tricky to utilize them.

I think the most plausible varangian equivalent is that of the English longbowmen you mention. By now they are well-known in Italy and Sicily has economic ties with England, importing wool and woolen textiles and exporting spices, wine, silks and alum. There is also the fact that the Lascarids are hostile to France, the Blanche wedding withstanding. Moreover, the English have been supporting Castille against Aragon and that's another plus. A unit of English longbowmen can become what the Swiss Guard was for the Ancien Regime.

Take em from the Muslims. Enslavement of Muslims is permissible.At any rate, the empire didn’t have any qualms with slavery.

 

[Basileus_of_the_Hellenes]

Why does this high-level bodyguard have to be North European at all? Alexandros or his descendents could take inspiration from the Varangians as being a high-level bodyguard, and establish that system among their own Hellenic subjects; After all, the past century plus has been almost constant war for the Vatatzes-Lascarids, surely they have highly competent officers or soldiery that they could promote to a sort of 'Order of the Phoenix (get it, rising from the ashes, I know it's hilarious)?' Or perhaps 'Phoenix Guard?' Using phoenix since Alexandros just declared the Basileia Sicilia & Hellas, so establishing a Hellenic bodyguard for the Emperor wouldn't be that out of the ordinary? And replenishing those ranks would be substantially easier if they were local soldiery? But then eventually it'll become a political buy-in sort of club for the aristocracy as the Scholai were for Justinian the Great so I'm not sure the best way to do this.

 

[Avrorrange]

Why does this high-level bodyguard have to be North European at all? Alexandros or his descendents could take inspiration from the Varangians as being a high-level bodyguard, and establish that system among their own Hellenic subjects; After all, the past century plus has been almost constant war for the Vatatzes-Lascarids, surely they have highly competent officers or soldiery that they could promote to a sort of 'Order of the Phoenix (get it, rising from the ashes, I know it's hilarious)?' Or perhaps 'Phoenix Guard?' Using phoenix since Alexandros just declared the Basileia Sicilia & Hellas, so establishing a Hellenic bodyguard for the Emperor wouldn't be that out of the ordinary? And replenishing those ranks would be substantially easier if they were local soldiery? But then eventually it'll become a political buy-in sort of club for the aristocracy as the Scholai were for Justinian the Great so I'm not sure the best way to do this.

We want no native guards. Treacherous scum./j

The whole point of recruiting Northern Europeans was to avoid loyalty issues and that Northern Europeans looked physically impressive(looked like giants).
If they build native units, there are plenty of names to choose from:Hetaireia,Athanatoi, Excubitors,Scholae etc.

 

[X Oristos]

We want no native guards. Treacherous scum./j

Are they though ? Why ?

The political culture of Sicily is that of dynastic continuation. And then who are the stakeholders who would rise up against the Crown? The political power is shared between the Basileus and the communes. The communes have every reason to support the monarch, as they don't want to return to the baron era. And all foreign monarchs come from systems that support baronage. The aristocracy has been defanged and they can rise only as servants of the state, be they military commanders or administrators. More or less the same at 17th century Sweden or Brandenburg.

 

[Lascaris]

Now, in the curse of the next two decades the proud parents would be in the little enviable but vital task for Mediaeval soverigns, from find suitables candidates for their daughters... Also, if the main line won't go extinct, then there would be the potential for the Lascaris-Vatastez to get related to most of the European royal Houses and/or main Aristocratic families... Turning them in the Thirteenth century version of the Habsburgs...

Turning into the Habsburgs is actually a good or a bad thing? One could easily argue that it did not go all that well for Spain...

This is where you see the true skill of Louis of Hungary.
Not only can he attack you in the present, but also a century in the past at the same time

You haven't even seen the paratime pike corps in action yet.

If their 7th child is a boy he would be the perfect age to marry Valentina Visconti forging an alliance with the Visconti in northern Italy and if things go as IOTL giving them a claim on Milan.

Can't wait for more.

Do the Milanese really want or need an alliance with Syracuse? Against whom one might ask?

And if that seventh boy has six daughters and his seventh being another boy then the next Lascaris ruler shall be an powerful warlock...

I short of recall some movie to that effect... but one might not there are other examples to think of if the seventh child is a son.

Assuming there is a 7th one? I think we need to start thinking about who would marry the eldest daughter and potentially become Basileus. A Philanthropenos fellow perhaps? What interesting heirs could she marry?

Andronikos, Manuel, Theodore or Michael Palaiologos... but most of the lot were ehm somewhat problematic?

What‘s up with this forum’s obsession with Valentina Visconti?She’s proposed as a bride in a lot of timelines around this period.

BTW, does Louis of Hungary also have a son problem like OTL?

He has no children at all at the moment.

simple, the obsession for the young Valentina Visconti is based on the thought ( wrong for me ) that her family will become extinct within 2/3 generations as happened in Otl, and therefore whoever marries her would end up inheriting Milan ( but I believe it is it is very unlikely that the Viscontis in general or Gian Galeazzo in particular have the same end as Otl ) in fact, in reality I don't want a war similar to the one that is destroying Naples in TL , in Northern Italy to happen for an elusive legacy that probably won't even happen, it's better to leave the rest of the peninsula in peace

Are we so certain Filippo Maria will have only an illegal daughter? Or for that matter that Gian Galeazzo the younger dies at age 10 and Carlo at age 2?

this is true, but there is a "subtle" difference between the Angevins, Stauffen, Haunteville and Aragonese of Otl compared to Syracuse TTL, namely that the latter mainly focuses on a political-cultural mix that takes heavily inspiration from Byzantium ( religion included ) and this will be an important limit for the expansion in the rest of the peninsula, already the Angevin Campania and Abruzzo would prefer to end up divided between local Latin rulers rather than be governed by a Greek-Sicilian who in the best of cases would be considered a schismatic ( as well as representing the main enemy who they have fought for decades ), so the direct influence the Lascarids can have on the rest of the peninsula will be significantly reduced compared to their counterparts in Otl, so I hardly see them trying to push themselves to conquer the region ( I'm talking about the territories still in the hands of Louis and Giovanna ), without a more than valid reason ( rather they would prefer it to end up in friendly hands or if they really want to keep it under control they would hand it over to one of their cadet branches, of the Latin faith, so as to avoid further conflicts with the rest of the Italian potentates, including the Papacy )

Quite accurate. And this also holds true within the former despotate's Italian lands. It's Italian provinces vary from overwhelmingly Greek, to mixed, to overwhelmingly Latin. And the relationship of the Latin population to the dynasty would vary. In the old provinces of the despotate like Val di Noto, Val Demone and Calabria the Latin population has good reasons to be just as loyal as their Greek speaking neighbours. Beyond these the basileus has to gain that loyalty and he rules them for hardly two decades. They have the advantage their predecessors were... bad to put it politely but it would be a very good idea to absorb and intergrate the huge gains made in the war with the Angevins before trying to gobble up even more territory.

Oh speaking of the Paleologos / Aleramici of Monferrato, with the weakening of the Angevins and their ability to project power in northern Italy, this means that the Marquises had at least 50 years easier than in Otl ( where even after Theodore I, the Angevins and the their allies went to war with Monferrato for the control of important strongholds in southern Piedmont - Lombardy, such as Asti for example ) this would potentially allow Monferrato to be in a better position than Otl ( limiting the expansion of Savoy, also thanks to the Milanese and Genoese support, and possibly being able to exploit the political chaos in Lunigiana to expand or at least steal land from Saluzzo ) now this would be interesting to see

John II was more or less competent. Secondotto by all accounts was an idiot. John III died fighting and was loyal to his siblings, I'll give it to him when compared to his Greek cousins. Theodore II was weak. His son John Jacob was a good soldier apparently but that's two generations down the line.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the november 1353 entry stipulated a "ten year truce", not a peace treaty. Granted, it's almost as good as one, but it's no formal legal settlement to the conflict, just an agreement to freeze it along the lines on the ground.
I may have not bothered to note this up if not for the expiration of the truce coming fast; the last entry was August 1363, that's just two-three months before the truce with Naples formally expires. Coincidence? Misdirection ? 🧐😉

Seemingly Joanna can barely afford to defend against the Hungarians, so a resumption of the war against Sicily? Not plausible at first glance. Now, if Venice is involved, does that change ?

The truce is over that is true. But that only means the war may resume, not that it WILL resume.

The political culture of Sicily is that of dynastic continuation. And then who are the stakeholders who would rise up against the Crown? The political power is shared between the Basileus and the communes. The communes have every reason to support the monarch, as they don't want to return to the baron era. And all foreign monarchs come from systems that support baronage. The aristocracy has been defanged and they can rise only as servants of the state, be they military commanders or administrators. More or less the same at 17th century Sweden or Brandenburg.

Lets put it differently... against whom is the basileus keeping a foreign guard? The communes and peasantry providing his soldiers and sailors? So he thinks of said communes as disloyal and his enemy? The communes would like to know...

 

[Xenophonte]

Turning into the Habsburgs is actually a good or a bad thing? One could easily argue that it did not go all that well for Spain...

While, indeed, it hardly could be considered as from the best things that ever could have happened to the Trastámara ruled Iberian Kingdoms.
I think that it might have been argued, if the Sicilian Vatastez-Lascaris present situation may come to resemble to the Castilian one, in place, from the Austrian one.
Such as was exemplified in the ending of the well known Motto: ''...felix Austria nub'', and one, that, even if partially, may come to be applied in the future, to the Sicilian Hellenic Dynasts...

 

[Avrorrange]

Turning into the Habsburgs is actually a good or a bad thing? One could easily argue that it did not go all that well for Spain...

You haven't even seen the paratime pike corps in action yet.

Do the Milanese really want or need an alliance with Syracuse? Against whom one might ask?

I short of recall some movie to that effect... but one might not there are other examples to think of if the seventh child is a son.

Andronikos, Manuel, Theodore or Michael Palaiologos... but most of the lot were ehm somewhat problematic?

Why are they all Greek?Are Latin princes are not an option?

By the way, has the concept of knighthood been popularised with the aristocracy of the empire? Many of the aristocracy like the Grifeos would have been actual knights before the Lascarid takeover.Also, did the Lascarids adopt the Western system of peerage?

He has no children at all at the moment.

Are we so certain Filippo Maria will have only an illegal daughter? Or for that matter that Gian Galeazzo the younger dies at age 10 and Carlo at age 2?

Quite accurate. And this also holds true within the former despotate's Italian lands. It's Italian provinces vary from overwhelmingly Greek, to mixed, to overwhelmingly Latin. And the relationship of the Latin population to the dynasty would vary. In the old provinces of the despotate like Val di Noto, Val Demone and Calabria the Latin population has good reasons to be just as loyal as their Greek speaking neighbours. Beyond these the basileus has to gain that loyalty and he rules them for hardly two decades. They have the advantage their predecessors were... bad to put it politely but it would be a very good idea to absorb and intergrate the huge gains made in the war with the Angevins before trying to gobble up even more territory.

John II was more or less competent. Secondotto by all accounts was an idiot. John III died fighting and was loyal to his siblings, I'll give it to him when compared to his Greek cousins. Theodore II was weak. His son John Jacob was a good soldier apparently but that's two generations down the line.

The truce is over that is true. But that only means the war may resume, not that it WILL resume.


Lets put it differently... against whom is the basileus keeping a foreign guard? The communes and peasantry providing his soldiers and sailors? So he thinks of said communes as disloyal and his enemy? The communes would like to know...

Are they though ? Why ?

The political culture of Sicily is that of dynastic continuation. And then who are the stakeholders who would rise up against the Crown? The political power is shared between the Basileus and the communes. The communes have every reason to support the monarch, as they don't want to return to the baron era. And all foreign monarchs come from systems that support baronage. The aristocracy has been defanged and they can rise only as servants of the state, be they military commanders or administrators. More or less the same at 17th century Sweden or Brandenburg.

Potential rioting peasant scum in the capital./j

On a serious note. What is the power level of the aristocracy like the Philanthropenos and the Grifeos compared to the Byzantine dynatoi of old? If a basileus ‘misbehaves’(damage their interests), all the other parties will probably still gang up and revolt. Even though they didn’t own entire provinces, the French nobility in the 17th century and of course the Byzantine dynatoi were still able to rise up in major revolts.With the right cause,the pronoia holders can always be persuaded to revolt under the leadership of the aristocracy.

Employing non-natives as guard continued to be a method to gain politically reliable soldiers long after nobles have been defanged in otl by states with a strong culture of dynastic continuation . There’s the famous Swiss guard(practically almost everyone employed the Swiss as bodyguards at one point or another back in the day) for example, who died fighting revolting “commune scum” and Spain permanently employed a large force of Walloons in the capital even after they lost the Spanish Netherlands, again to fight against “commune scum”. There is also an element of prestige in employing non-natives as guards.

That said, from the pov of the state, these things are just luxuries.Good to have but hardly necessary.

 

[X Oristos]

By the way, since we are talking about galleys, Venice and Piraeus was mentioned, I expect the Sicilians to have established shipsheds in Piraeus.

The Venetians had established shipsheds in Crete, where they could pull the galleys out of the water, repair them or even built new ones and keep them protected from the elements. Here is a modern photo from Chania, where the front of the shipsheds is built up (during the ottoman era).

It is worth mentioning, that the greatest infrastructure project of ancient Athens, were the shipsheds of Piraeus. The three bays of Piraeus hosted 372 roofed shipsheds.

Of course, those shipsheds would have been gone by the 14th century. However, even today there are remains of the stone corridors that lead to the sea. I would bet that back in the 14th century there would have been many more corridors around. The new shipsheds that would house the sicilian fleet can be built over he ancient ones. Although since the modern galleys are wider than the ancient triremes, they would have to be less dense. Overall, Piraeus can host a huge galley fleet.

 

[Lascaris]

Why are they all Greek?Are Latin princes are not an option?

By the way, has the concept of knighthood been popularised with the aristocracy of the empire? Many of the aristocracy like the Grifeos would have been actual knights before the Lascarid takeover.Also, did the Lascarids adopt the Western system of peerage?


Potential rioting peasant scum in the capital./j

But a central tenet of the new Sicily is that Alexandros I based his power on said peasant scum because their betters were either supporting his rivals or thinking they could be his rivals themselves. Now his grandson will build an army against his very power base?

Now Alexandros I, and his sons ans grandsons DID build a standing army, as of 1364 it is standing at around 6,000 men. Which for the most part is...more peasant scum with a core of heavy cavalry.

On a serious note. What is the power level of the aristocracy like the Philanthropenos and the Grifeos compared to the Byzantine dynatoi of old?

Less. Much less. Founder effect to a large extend. Alexandros made a grab for what in 1280 was still the most centralized state on earth, it is no accident that the highest noble rank to be found in Sicily was barons, while he had been raised with the sure knowledge what the Byzantine aristocracy had done to his family (hint Ioannis IV Lascaris)

If a basileus ‘misbehaves’(damage their interests), all the other parties will probably still gang up and revolt. Even though they didn’t own entire provinces, the French nobility in the 17th century and of course the Byzantine dynatoi were still able to rise up in major revolts.With the right cause,the pronoia holders can always be persuaded to revolt under the leadership of the aristocracy.

Which pronoia holders? One of the Alexandrine innovations, copied for Michael VIII but on a much larger scale, is that he gave pronoia holdings to infantrymen. Some pronoia cavalry might join a revolt of the aristocracy sure... to the extend they are mid sized landowners themselves.. The small landholders forming the infantry? For them it would be suicidal to join aristocrats coveting their lands.

Of course, those shipsheds would have been gone by the 14th century. However, even today there are remains of the stone corridors that lead to the sea. I would bet that back in the 14th century there would have been many more corridors around. The new shipsheds that would house the sicilian fleet can be built over he ancient ones. Although since the modern galleys are wider than the ancient triremes, they would have to be less dense.

Actually not quite. The triremes were 37m long with a 5m beam, the neosoikoi are 40m long and 6m wide. A Venetian galia sottil, the standard ship is 38m long and 5m beam displacing 140t at the start of the 15th century. By the next century it will grow to 41m long and 200t but with the same beam. So they should just about fit, the ships may vary in displacement and construction but their dimensions are about the same.

 

[Avrorrange]

But a central tenet of the new Sicily is that Alexandros I based his power on said peasant scum because their betters were either supporting his rivals or thinking they could be his rivals themselves. Now his grandson will build an army against his very power base?

Even the lowliest land for grant soldier(which formed the army) is not really a ‘peasant scum’ in the conventional sense. That said, the common grunt from the land for service themata system didn’t have a problem revolting against emperors either despite not being nobility themselves. People are never content in their stations and always want more. When someone offered to give them more rights and wealth,they always have the potential to revolt. The Janissaries would not have revolted if not for this case. It’s naive to think that people would continue to be loyal to you because the basileus’ grandfather gave your grandfather land.Your duty as Basileus is to meet expectations to continuously deliver more or moderate expectations. Inevitably some Basileus will be more incompetent than most and the only way they can retain the loyalty of their people is to be more generous than others.

Also, if a dipshit Basileus decided to LARP Lucius Tarquinius Superbus/Nero/Caligula/Andronikos I etc, you think people should take his shit because their ancestors somehow benefited from his rule? Largesse from Augustus didn’t save the likes of Caligula and Nero, and ultimately, it was foreigners like the German guard who remained most loyal to them.

Now Alexandros I, and his sons ans grandsons DID build a standing army, as of 1364 it is standing at around 6,000 men. Which for the most part is...more peasant scum with a core of heavy cavalry.

For now, but in the medieval period, privileges getting entrenched is a necessity of the times. You need years to properly train a soldier. Assuming the soldiers even bothered to train their descendants a little, their descendants should always be more qualified in their roles than actual ‘peasant scum’. Furthermore, I don’t think even these grunts identify themselves with actual ‘peasant scum’. They probably think that they are at least a cut above the ‘peasants’.

Less. Much less. Founder effect to a large extend. Alexandros made a grab for what in 1280 was still the most centralized state on earth, it is no accident that the highest noble rank to be found in Sicily was barons, while he had been raised with the sure knowledge what the Byzantine aristocracy had done to his family (hint Ioannis IV Lascaris)

It’s not so much as I know the aristocracy is evil and therefore I will and I can do whatever it is to stop their power from expanding.It’s usually a case of I have no choice but to empower them. Education doesn’t come cheap. Only people with a modicum of wealth and privileges can acquire sufficient knowledge. Competent people come with limited supply.When said people work for you, they expect you to reward them richly, especially when they are risking your lives. They want to become a ‘shareholder’ of the ‘company’ and not merely just an ‘employee’.They want and will slowly acquire entrenched power. It’s a necessary evil. Various Basileus KNEW this(they were themselves dynatoi who became Basileus through revolts) but there’s little they could do about it. It’s how a theoretically centralised state like the ERE got an increasingly feudal aristocracy .

All said and done,the English nobles during Middle Ages and the French nobles during the Fronde were probably baron level(compared to French and German nobles during the Middle Ages)as well despite having ducal titles,but they were still capable of organising large revolts.

Which pronoia holders? One of the Alexandrine innovations, copied for Michael VIII but on a much larger scale, is that he gave pronoia holdings to infantrymen. Some pronoia cavalry might join a revolt of the aristocracy sure... to the extend they are mid sized landowners themselves.. The small landholders forming the infantry? For them it would be suicidal to join aristocrats coveting their lands.

Didn’t stop grunt themata infantry soldiers from joining the rebellion of aristocrats back in the ‘good old’ days.

 

[X Oristos]

The Janissaries would not have revolted if not for this case.

The revolts of the Jannisaries are in a very specific paradigm that it would difficult to find something of the short outside of the Ottoman Empire. Their revolts had both a social contract and a socioeconomic aspect. The social contract was between the Sultan and his "slaves" who were also part of his household. The socioeconomic aspect was simply that the Jannisaries had also jobs on the side. They were merchants, craftsmen etc. Basically they were part of Constantinople's burgher class. Mismanagement, coin devaluation etc directily affected them.

Overall, their situation was different than e.g. early 17th century Sweden that is a decent analogy for Sicily.

When said people work for you, they expect you to reward them richly,especially when they are risking your lives. They want to become a ‘shareholder’ of the company and not merely just a employee.When that happens, they will slowly acquire entrenched power. It’s a necessary evil. Various Basileus KNEW this(they were themselves dynatoi who became Basileus through revolts) but there’s little they could do about it. It’s how a theoretically centralised state like the ERE got an increasingly feudal aristocracy .

That's very true but the system that exists is different than the one in ERE. An aristocrat in Sicily can indeed accumulate more wealth and influence by being a state bureaucrat. In the Great Elector's Brandenburg, the elite that wanted to advance its interests had do it within the boundaries of the system. They wouldn't just try to replace the Hohenzollerns with another dynasty. And any truly republican anti-monarchical consciousness would take a pretty long time to develop, so it won't be something to see in the 14th and 15th centuries.

Didn’t stop grunt themata infantry soldiers from joining the rebellion of aristocrats back in the ‘good old’ days.

Yet as said, the ERE system was quite different than that of TTL Sicily.

All said, the English nobles during Middle Ages and the French nobles during the Fronde were probably baron level(compared to French and German nobles during the Middle Ages)as well despite having ducal titles but they were still capable of organising large revolts

It also depends what baron mean in a context. The old saying went that an English baron is as rich as French count or a German duke. The system that the Normans introduced, produced a deeply entrenched elite. I wouldn't be surprised that the 1360 sicilian nobility owns a smaller percentage of the Empire than the British aristocracy owns of Britain... today.

Fronde's main problem were the Princes of the Blood and powerful nobles that were definitely not the low-bottom feeders of a feudal system. Gaston and Conde were as high nobility as one can get. And the great Turenne that brought down the former, was from a powerful and influential dynasty. Honestly, at this point, Sicily is at the same level of centralization as 1660s France. In some aspects, more centralized than Louis XIV's realm. Even Colbert could not break down provincial privileges.

 

[Avrorrange]

The revolts of the Jannisaries are in a very specific paradigm that it would difficult to find something of the short outside of the Ottoman Empire. Their revolts had both a social contract and a socioeconomic aspect. The social contract was between the Sultan and his "slaves" who were also part of his household.

Argyraspides?Praetorian guards?Streltsies?The succeeding Russian Imperial guards?Gardes Francais? The various Chinese Imperial guard units etc?A lot of them betrayed their masters at one point or another because their rulers were not able to provide more perks.

The socioeconomic aspect was simply that the Jannisaries had also jobs on the side. They were merchants, craftsmen etc. Basically they were part of Constantinople's burgher class. Mismanagement, coin devaluation etc directily affected them.

They were not the only ones. A lot of the other guard units I mentioned had that as well. This is a natural course of increasingly incompetent rulers failing to meet the expectations of their army for wealth and promotions and decided to relax standards as a bribe.Frankly, many rulers simply weren’t competent enough to address corruption in the army especially following long periods of peace. Dealing with military corruption ,especially in your bodyguards is always a very tricky matter that could have severe blowbacks.

Overall, their situation was different than e.g. early 17th century Sweden that is a decent analogy for Sicily.

And Sweden eventually experienced a full on aristocratic comeback in the next century where kings are little more than playthings for the aristocracy. Never assume that people and their descendants would remain loyal permanently, nor do your descendants have the competence to retain people’s faith. Societal structure and political culture also changes.IOTL for example, the rise of the bourgeoisie eventually saw the displacement of the aristocracy as the main challenge to monarchical power, who wanted increased roles and privileges in the governance of the state.

That's very true but the system that exists is different than the one in ERE. An aristocrat in Sicily can indeed accumulate more wealth and influence by being a state bureaucrat. In the Great Elector's Brandenburg, the elite that wanted to advance its interests had do it within the boundaries of the system. They wouldn't just try to replace the Hohenzollerns with another dynasty. And any truly republican anti-monarchical consciousness would take a pretty long time to develop, so it won't be something to see in the 14th and 15th centuries.

You don’t necessarily need to displace the Lascarids with another dynasty. You just need to replace the Lascarid king with a more pliable Lascarid ruler. One blessing regarding the Lascarids so far is their relative lack of male dynasts, so people don’t have an alternate ruler if they don‘t like the current one. Ioannes and his brother Theodore were also relatively loyal to one another. Not helped by the fact that the former was childless. In terms of the comparison with Brandenburg, an important thing to remember about the German states is that the HRE exists.If the junkers try depose their Hohenzollern rulers, there’s high chance that the emperor himself would intervene. In other centralised states of the time like France and Spain, you regularly still see cadet branches like the House of Orleans having a go at the throne.

Yet as said, the ERE system was quite different than that of TTL Sicily.


It also depends what baron mean in a context. The old saying went that an English baron is as rich as French count or a German duke. The system that the Normans introduced, produced a deeply entrenched elite. I wouldn't be surprised that the 1360 sicilian nobility owns a smaller percentage of the Empire than the British aristocracy owns of Britain... today.

Technically speaking, when William the Conqueror took England, the crown owned the supermajority of land in England even after he gave out a large part to his supporters. Overtime however, his less worthy successors gave a lot of the land away to supporters and princes as rewards/appanges, or had to sell their land to raise money for wars. Eventually the likes of the Stuarts owned so few land due to the extravagant spendings of their predecessors that they were eternally beholden to parliamentary grants.

This is essentially my point. The Basileus is powerful now, but what about the future? There’s no guarantee that the next basileus wouldn’t be a dipshit who bankrupts the state through extravagant spending and had to squander off potentials for monarchical power through selling off land etc.Nor should you expect people benefitted by his ancestors to remain satisfied with the basileus because of what his ancestors did.

Fronde's main problem were the Princes of the Blood and powerful nobles that were definitely not the low-bottom feeders of a feudal system. Gaston and Conde were as high nobility as one can get. And the great Turenne that brought down the former, was from a powerful and influential dynasty. Honestly, at this point, Sicily is at the same level of centralization as 1660s France. In some aspects, more centralized than Louis XIV's realm. Even Colbert could not break down provincial privileges.

Like I have been saying before, Sicily is blessed in the sense that right now it didn’t have a lot of Princes of the Blood. Once there are many princes however, these princes will eventually form the leaders of the opposition party. There’s only one throne, and not everyone is necessarily content to play second fiddle like Theodore did during the reign of his older brother. How do they take power? Promise people privileges and wealth of course. Centralized is also not the same as not having a powerful entrenched class. England was extremely centralised in the 1300s due William the Conqueror’s policy of giving non-contiguous stretches of land to nobles across the country, but it still had a powerful nobility. Centralised =/= powerful monarchical power. The likes of Louis XIV were also able to reduce aristocratic power due to the fact that firearms in the 1600s has progressed to the point where the military warrior class has become obsolete.Any peasant who could follow orders, march, aim, load and fire a musket could be a soldier.

 

[Lascaris]

Adrianople, December 1363

Sultan Murad I moved the capital of the Ottoman state to Adrianople from Bursa, a sign of the increasing importance the Ottomans were now placing to Europe, where earlier in the year the Ottomans had captured Philippoulolis given away to the Bulgarians during the Byzantine civil war and Didymoteichon. As for emperor Ioannis V, the basileus instead of taking on the Ottomans had found it a better idea to invade Bulgaria too capturing Anchialos and putting Mesembria under siege...

Venice, January 1364

News of the Cretan revolt had reached Venice the previous September. An attempt to reconcile with the Venetian colonists on the islands had failed causing feverish military and diplomatic activity by the republic to deal with the rebels. As an army and fleet were being prepared Venetian envoys had gone off to the papacy, Genoa, Naples, Cyprus, Hungary, Constantinople and Sicily demanding that no aid would be given to the rebels. Most responses, had been positive, with the pope even proclaiming a crusade against the rebels, with two ominous exceptions. King Louis of Hungary had refused to receive the Venetian envoys. Alexandros II in Syracuse had accepted them but had also received envoys from Crete at the same time asking for Sicilian protection. When the chief Venetian envoy had threatened him if he did anything of the short it had not been received all that well...

Brno, March 1364

Louis I of Hungary, met with Charles IV of Bohemia and Rudolf IV of Austria signing a treaty that finally put at an end the conflict that had arisen from their alliance against the patriarch of Aquileia, a Hungarian ally. As soon as the treaty was signed Louis was on his way south.

Venice. April 10th 1364

A fleet of 33 war galleys and even more merchant ships carrying 2,000 infantry and 800 horse under Luchino Dal Verme left the lagoon. It would take four weeks to reach Crete.

Crete, May 7th, 1364

The Venetian army landed in Fraskia bay, to the west on Candia and advanced on the Cretan capital. The city would fall within three days, most of the Venetian colonists would refuse to fight against the motherland and the Greeks were to few to hold out on their own. Marco Gradenigo, the governor of the republic of Saint Titus executed. But the quick victory did not mean the revolt was over. The Venetians would move out of Candia to capture the other cities of the island as the remaining rebels took to the mountains to continue resisting.

Venice, June 1364

The news of the victory in Candia had been greeted with large celebrations in the city. But the celebrations would be cut short when news were received that king Louis of Hungary had declared war against Venice from Zagreb and his army was on the march to invade Dalmatia and Venetia proper. By late July Louis would put Treviso under siege. Francesco I da Carrara the lord of Padua with the Hungarian army devastating his territory and the Venetians refusing, or unable, to provide aid would ally instead with the Hungarians and declare war against Venice as well.

Messina, July 1364

Alexandros II Doukas Lascaris boarded his flagship. Two dozen Sicilian galleys and an army of 4,000 men were heading east, the largest Sicilian force since the time of the war against the Angevins. More galleys and troops were already gathering in Piraeus under Alexios Gryphon. Yet more troops were mobilizing in the Peloponesse and Central Greece.

Chalkis, August 1364

Four thousand men under Ioannis Buas crossed into Euboea putting the capital of Chalkis, Negreponte for the Latins under siege. The local Latin lords and the Venetian garrison could barely place a quarter as many men. Thus holing up in their castles and Chalkis formidable fortifications was the only possible solution...

Methone and Corone, August 1364

The two fortresses had been called "the eyes of the republic" since the Venetians had seized them in the aftermath of the 4th crusade. Since then they had rarely been seriously threatened, even during the reconquest of the Morea Lascarid armies had scrupulously avoided them. But now the tensions simmering between Sicily and the Serenissima for decades had finally broken out to all out war. Michael Rallis led an army of four thousand men against them.

Syracuse, September 1364

Adrienne Doukas Lascaris nee Palaiologos gave a grunt as her namesake virtually jumped on her. At twelve the younger Adrienne was getting too big too handle. "Grandma it's a boy!" she blurted out beaming all over. Now the elder Adrienne joined her in the smile. While she loved her daughter in law she had start to worry after Agnes and her son had had half a dozen daughters and no son. As for naming the young one? Theodore was a given...

Souda bay, September 12, 1364

Dal Verme after retaking Candia had marched on Rethymno retaking it after a short siege and then had moved on Chania. Chania, and Souda, stronger fortresses than Rethymnos had held out longer but in the end had also fallen with the Venetian army then turning against the Greek rebels that had holed up in the mountains of western Crete and Sfakia. His attacks with the numbers of his army swelled to nearly four and a half thousand men by feudatories switching sides back to Venice in hopes of securing their holdings had been met with not inconsiderable success. And then the Sicilian fleet under Alexandros II had shown up into Souda bay with 41 galleys. The Venetian fleet had come out to fight but had been defeated after and extremely hard fought action with the Sicilians losing ten ships and the Venetians fourteen before an enterprising Venetian captain Vettor Pisani had managed to effect a breakout and escape east with the surviving ships. But that meant the Sicilians now had a secure port in Souda and their fleet was now unopposed.

Apokoronas, Crete, September 17, 1364

Alexandros II had landed a little over six thousand men as Souda. His initial plans to march west against Chania had been changed as over six hundred Sfakia rebels under Constantine Skordilis "carrying swords the Greek way and going nowhere without their bows" as a Venetian chronicler had described them had flocked to his army bringing with them news that Luchino Dal Verme and his army were nearby trying to subdue the rebellious Sfakia villages. Dal Verme had tried to retreat towards Rethymno but the Sicilians had caught up with him thanks to local guides. in the ensuing battle the severely outnumbered Venetian army would be crushed with over three thousand men killed, the Cretans in Alexandros army were not much in the mood of taking prisoners. Chania, already besieged by Gryphon would surrender 6 weeks later as Alexandros marched east to besiege Rethymno which would surrender in December.

Avignon, October 1364

Pope Urban V was in a bind. He was on friendly terms with Venice having ecommunicated the Cretan rebels and even proclaimed a crusade against them. But in Italy he very much needed the support of Louis I of Hungary in particular given the continuing Papal war against Bernabo Visconti and now Louis was at war with Venice had rejected the popes attempt at mediation and was even insisting on papal support against Venice. He could not turn against Hungary in support of Venice but he didn't want to completely alianate Venice either. Fortunately the Lascarid ruler offered a convenient scapegoat. The Hungarians it could be argued with a straight face were fighting a separate war with Venice that happened to coincide with the Cretan rebellion. The Sicilians were outright supporting the rebels Urban had excommunicated and proclaimed a crusade against. On these grounds Urban excommunicated Alexandros II and placed Sicily under interdict. By this time it was starting to grow so common many Sicilians could not remember when their island was not under interdict. Unfortunately for the papacy putting Sicily under near constant interdict these was not working out all that well with the Greek rite making continuous inroads and sects like the Fraticelli gaining ground in the Catholic parts of the population...

Nicosia, December 1364

King Peter I of Cyprus was back in Cyprus and not happy at all. His plans for a crusade were falling apart with the king of Hungary instead of fighting for Christ, attacking Venice and the schismatics in Crete rising up with the Sicilians, a bunch defying the true church for the past three generations jumping in. It was his duty to do something about it. Even his father had recognized as much two decades ago even though he had not had his heart on it...

 

[Valin Arcadius]

"Grandma it's a boy!"

WOO! Reconquring Crete, the Greek Venetian territories, and he finally has a son. Man Alexandros is on a roll.

On these grounds Urban excommunicated Alexandros II and placed Sicily under interdict.

The Sicilians

 

[X Oristos]

The Venetian fleet had come out to fight but had been defeated after and extremely hard fought action with the Sicilians losing ten ships and the Venetians fourteen

Both in 1350 and 1378 the Venetians sent forth a similar number of galleys from the metropole, 25 and 26. So let's say that now they sent 25 venetian and 8 dalmatian galleys. The Venetians and Lombards of Negroponte and Modon/Coron are besieged and effectively out of the naval war. The Venetian feudatories in Crete joined dal Verme's army and suffered grievous losses. Even so, with the Greeks rebelling they would have been hard pressed to man the cretan galleys on their own. And not all feudatories had joined Verme, with the Gradenigo and Venier clans resisting. Crete has been neutralized as a source of galleys and with a destroyed field army, Candia will soon be under siege. Alexandros is marching now through Rethymno, so I guess Kallergis will join him further bolstering his forces.

What would be the reserves left to the Venetians? A couple of dalmatian galleys - although the Dalmatians might turn rebels soon. And around 29 galleys from the Metropole if they use every able-bodied man.

A fleet of 33 war galleys and even more merchant ships carrying 2,000 infantry and 800 horse under Luchino Dal Verme left the lagoon. It would take four weeks to reach Crete.

I think it is very plausible that a great part of the army were Venetians and not just mercenaries. The descriptions of the army's composition mention Turkish and Bohemian mercenaries with the latter being sappers. The interesting part is that the Venetians tried to hire Englishmen. They wanted to hire 300 men but after long negotiations they managed to hire only 110 soldiers. I think it is an indication that the Venetians didn't want to overpay for mercenaries. Perhaps due to the Florence-Siena war, the rates of the mercenaries could have been increased. That's another clue that indicates a significant Venetian participation in dal Verme's army. At the very least, the crossbowmen of the army should have been Venetians and that would mean the best part of the infantry. These men are gone now, dead or soon to be besieged in Candia. Venice back then had a small army and even a few hundred trained infantrymen will be sorely missed.

Since Lajos declared war after the expedition had left for Crete, I don't think its composition would have been different than in OTL.

Due to the departure of the fleet and army, Venice should have a major manpower issue and their situation in land is thus worse than in OTL 1357. Da Carrara, della Torre and Lajos most likely will capture Treviso and Istria. Venice proper is immune from a land attack but Chioggia can be captured by an army - and it had been from Franks, Magyars and others. In OTL, the Paduans captured on their own the mouth of the Brenta river and the Bebber tower and established bastions to control access to the waterways of the Brenta-Adige river system, cutting off Venice from the padanian plain. The barrier island off Chioggia and then Chioggia herself, are exposed. Even without the genoese fleet the Paduans and Hungarians can capture them, since Brenta is 92-175m wide - the venetian fleet can be held at arm's length by artillery from the bastions. The only chance the Venetians have to save Chioggia is by concentrating their fleet and manpower in the lagoon. Even so, it will be bloody. If they have to choose betwee Chioggia and Crete, it is not much of a choice.

As for naming the young one? Theodore was a given...

Now we have to see if littleTheodore survives infancy.

The Venetian fleet had come out to fight but had been defeated after and extremely hard fought action with the Sicilians losing ten ships and the Venetians fourteen

Were those ships captured or sunk? The sicilian casualties were certainly sunk since I doubt that the Venetians would sail away with trophies, but what about the venetian galleys?

King Peter I of Cyprus was back in Cyprus and not happy at all. His plans for a crusade were falling apart with the king of Hungary instead of fighting for Christ, attacking Venice and the schismatics in Crete rising up with the Sicilians, a bunch defying the true church for the past three generations jumping in. It was his duty to do something about it. Even his father had recognized as much two decades ago even though he had not had his heart on it...

The Venetians are in a tough strategic position. Half of their fleet is in Cyprus, the rest has to defend Chioggia. In between the two locations, the Greeks will have a great time destroying venetian merchantmen. I would bet that the Genoese semi-independent actors (read pirates) would join in, especially in the Black Sea. Venetian trade will collapse. Moreover, in the OTL War of Chioggia, it seems that Venice survived by importing apulian grain. Now this source of grain is not available, similarly to north italian grain. A long war will be catastrophic for Venice even if the city is not properly sieged.

Speaking of Cyprus, I doubt that Peter can provide more than 10 galleys that he seems to had in OTL 1365. I think it is reasonable that he will have the 2 papal galleys present in Cyprus in OTL. Basically, Peter and Pisani can have a fleet in similar size to that of Alexandros if the Greeks cannot add more ships. Moreover, Pisani and Peter will have slightly different priorities. Pisani was a fervent venetian patriot, he commands a great part of the venetian manpower and he is at the wrong side of the Mediterranean while his homeland is under direct threat. I doubt his priority would be to recapture Crete, but he will try to return back to Venice as soon as it is realistically possible. He is in a similar position to OTL Zeno. However Peter is there to fight schismatics in Crete, not to take his galleys and knights in Venice. Up to a point, their interests allign, but beyond that...

 

[Aristomenes]

Venetian-Sicilian war

 

[Lascaris]

Both in 1350 and 1378 the Venetians sent forth a similar number of galleys from the metropole, 25 and 26. So let's say that now they sent 25 venetian and 8 dalmatian galleys.

The numbers do not fit IMO. OTL the Venetians did send 33 galleys and obviously this did not include either Cretan ones, Crete was in revolt, nor Dalmatian ones, Dalmatia had already been lost.

So if you want to look to the question from first principles first if we know that the Venetian marine had about 3,300 ships and 36,000 sailors in 1410, what fraction of these can be mobilized for military service and how much smaller is their number 50 years earlier. And second but pretty much tied up to this what is the population of the Venetian state in the 1360s and by the time of the war of Chioggia? At some very rough guesstimate:

• Stato de'l Mar: ~181,000: 146,000 in Crete, 6000 in Morea, 29,000 in Euboea
• Venice and lagoon: ~101000. It starts at 120,000+40000 pre-plague, we know the population of the city goes down up to 50% by the plague then hits a record 180,000 in 1490. If you assume it starts to recover early, logical given the economic incentives for people to move to Venice at a very high 0.7% a year for the period it should had gone down to about 67,000 right after the plague from 120,000 which fits with the up to 50% loss estimates). Assume some growth in the meantime and 25-30,000 surviving in the outlying settlements...
• Terraferma: ~100,000? Not idea really. We know it has a population of 1.417 million in 1548 (census figure) and an estimated 1 million in the end of the 15th century, for a territory of roughly 30,000 square km. In 1364 it is still only Mestre, Treviso and Bassano de'l Grappa. so around 4-4,500 square km or so? At a population density of 20-22 persons per square km you get to a rough 100,000.

Now if the above is anywhere near close to reality the Venetian state at this point excluding Dalmatia has a population around 380,000. By the time of the war of Choggia it's maybe up to about 386,000 or so. If ~15 galleys are being mobilized from the Stato De'l Mar this leaves ~45 mobilized from the Veneto or 4.68% of the population. Not an extraordinary figure for a naval city state... 5th and 4th century Athens is mobilizing vastly more. If you split this up further and assume recruit from the Terraferma are manning roughly 8 galleys then the Venice proper share is closer to 7.4% of the population... the Athenians putting to the fleet ~18.5% of their population in 480 still laugh at this...

What would be the reserves left to the Venetians? A couple of dalmatian galleys - although the Dalmatians might turn rebels soon. And around 29 galleys from the Metropole if they use every able-bodied man.

To stick to the Athenian theme every able bodied man for Venice and the lagoon should count about oh 17,500 men right after the plague enough to fully man over 80 galleys...

 

[X Oristos]

The numbers do not fit IMO. OTL the Venetians did send 33 galleys and obviously this did not include either Cretan ones, Crete was in revolt, nor Dalmatian ones, Dalmatia had already been lost.

And they had 5 light galleys stored in Methone at the war of Chioggia, Euboea usually provided 1 galley in the regular fleet and Cyclades may add 2-4. But even if they didn't add galleys from their empire, they could always send a larger number of metropolitan galleys. I didn't claim that after the 25-26 galleys they would need to send greybeards. However, an additional fleet of 28-29 galleys need greybeards and untrained men. Between 0 and 28 there is a great difference. So they could reasonably send 8-9 more galleys in OTL 1364 without scraping the barrel of their manpower reserves. Having said that, since the 25-26 figure appears at the beginning of both the wars of Straits and Chioggia, it seems that it was their regular fleet. By regular I mean a fleet for a main war, not the much smaller squadron that was patrolling the Adriatic in peacetime.

• Terraferma: ~100,000? Not idea really. We know it has a population of 1.417 million in 1548 (census figure) and an estimated 1 million in the end of the 15th century, for a territory of roughly 30,000 square km. In 1364 it is still only Mestre, Treviso and Bassano de'l Grappa. so around 4-4,500 square km or so? At a population density of 20-22 persons per square km you get to a rough 100,000.

That's a very good question. I would say that the original Terraferma had a smaller population density than both future venetian Lombardy and Friuli. The land south of Treviso was marshy after all and Lombardy was almost always more densely populated than Veneto and even more so if we take Venice proper out of the equation.

By the end of the 15th century Venice had 100k people, Verona almost half of it and Vicenza, 20k. By the end of the 15th century Treviso and its hinterland had around 138k people, while Padua and hinterland 118k. I think the "hinterland" of Treviso was basically almost all 14th century Terraferma. I think the 1363 population of Terrafirma was smaller than 100k. My guess would be something like 90k at 1363.

Assume some growth in the meantime and 25-30,000 surviving in the outlying settlements...

Again I am not that optimistic about the outlying settlements of the lagoon. In 1379, the population of Chioggia and its environs (its barrier island and possibly the mouth of the Brenta river) was 4,5k people. And Chioggia seems to have been the most important of the outlying settlements. So my guess would be perhaps something around 20k.

So if you want to look to the question from first principles first if we know that the Venetian marine had about 3,300 ships and 36,000 sailors in 1410, what fraction of these can be mobilized for military service and how much smaller is their number 50 years earlier.

That's the difference with Athens. Venice's coffers depended much more on commerce than classical Athens. I would compare Venice with Dutch Zealand and Holland. I suppose that Venetians and Dutch had a similar attitude towards war. Commerce didn't stop during war, especially at the beginning. I expect by the time of the war, hundreds of venetian merchantmen to be spread around the Mediterranean. Even though both Venetians and Genoese would go to great pains to produce fleets in 1378 and pre-Pola 1379, they were also very active at raiding each other's merchantmen. That was the role of Zeno and most likely that of smaller genoese squadrons that later on joined Doria.

This is why I expect that the naval defeat at Souda would be catastrophic for venetian commerce, especially given the geography of the lascarid holdings. When the Venetians sent the expedition against Crete they didn't expect a war against Sicily, Hungary and Padua, a war for the very life of the Serenissima. That's why I expect them to do as the Dutch did in their naval wars with England and continue their commercial activities (as they did during the wars with Genoa) to continue financing the state and the war, And what unprotected merchantmen mean for a naval state ? When the English defeated the Dutch at the Battle of the Gabbard, the dutch trade was left unprotected and "grass grew at the streets of Amsterdam".

The venetian ships in the Black Sea are at the tender mercy of their Genoese rivals or they have to run a gauntlet of lascarid shores to return home. The ones in the Aegean Sea are fair game for Greek privateers. The ones in the western Mediterranean cannot return home. Only the convoy to Egypt can find refuge to Cyprus. These sailors would be a godsent to Pisani to replace his losses, since I doubt the 19 galleys escaped without losses. In 1365 the convoy had around 70 merchantmen. With crews between 20 and 50 men depending the ship type we are talking about 1,400- 3,500 sailors in the extreme cases of small or large cogs/naves etc.

the Athenians putting to the fleet ~18.5% of their population in 480 still laugh at this...

Themistocles was a wily fox to choose Salamis for a battle. Narrow waters so that the superior phoenician ships cannot manoeuvre. I doubt that all the athenian crews in Salamis were properly trained as was the case with the later fleets of the Hegemony. During the Hegemony, the habit of sending regularly a squadron of triremes to police and train was a wise one that gradually trained a huge cadre of men. If one adds a number of expeditions like the Samian Revolt and Pericle's Black Sea expedition, once can see how in 431 BC the Athenians had a huge reserve of trained men. The situation in Venice was different. It doesn't seem that the state was intentionally creating a huge reserve of its citizens but was depending on the peacetime mercantile naval acitvity for manpower - as the 17th century Dutch.

The 34-galley fleet that Pisani commanded in Chioggia, we know that had also untrained men conscripted. Such fleet with a core of trained manpower would and did well in the confined waters of the lagoon. But if they had sent this fleet to circumnavigate Italy to attack the Genoese ... that would have been a different thing altogether.



EDIT: Speaking of manpower, we know that in the mid-16th century inland Crete could produce 4-5k fighting men, armed in the manner you said: "sword and bow". How many would they be back in 1363? 2,5-3k ?