IOTL Theodore II of Nicaea had four daughters and one son. The son, John IV, was among Theodore’s youngest. However what if John’s older sisters had been born boys instead? Would Michael Palaiologoi have been able to usury the throne against an adult Laskarid emperor following Theodore’s death?
What if all five children of Emperor Theodore II of Nicaea were sons?
- Thread starter Sevarics
- Start date
Likely not. Michael VIII only got support for the coup because George Mouzalon was universally hated by the aristocracy (and apparently because Mouzalon had suspended the payment of Michael’s Latin mercenaries). If John IV was older, he could have likely rallied the Laskarid faction to himself, and the Palaiologoi would probably think twice about attempting to overthrow an adult emperor instead of his unpopular regent.
Would there be any noticeable differences between continued lascarid rule and Palaiologoi rule
Definitely, almost a U-turn. The Palaiologos coup put the self-serving aristocracy in power, which undermined imperial authority. Theodore II also had a deep spiritual connection with Anatolia, which his son would likely share. European campaigns would resume, as well as Anatolian troops being used to garrison Europe, but I don’t think for a moment that Anatolia wouldn’t continue as the priority of a Laskarid regime. Finally, the empire would be far stabler because there would not be an Arsenite schism. Michael VIII was one of the very worst Byzantine emperors imo. He only gets good rep for having recaptured Constantinople on a fluke, after the Laskarids had actually done all the work, and for how he dealt with Anjou.
So how much of Anatolia could the Laskarids take back with enough time ?
Well, Theodore II had just retaken Laodicea and Chonae (through diplomacy iirc), so there definitely is room for expansion. The Seljuks will be collapsing soon and Nicaea is ideally situated to take advantage of that fact. They could push south towards the Pamphylian coast and Attaleia, for example, given the strength of their fleet and the general defensibility of their border regions. I still think Bulgaria would be a greater threat though.
Perhaps they could help the Byzantine Empire centralize enough to allow it survive past the 15th century?
While Michael VII undoubtedly behaved very poorly and his actions did have some negative consequences, to describe the only Roman Emperor post-1204 to successfully outmanoeuvre the West and maintain the Empire as a significant power as "one of the very worst" is completely unfair. Any Nicaean Emperor to recapture Constantinople would have been faced with the same challenges from the West, and most would have found themselves losing all of Europe at a minimum. The Laskarids certainly would have struggled to pull off the religious agility that preserved Roman power for several decades. Michael did indeed end up failing, facing almost insurmountable odds, but it would have taken a very lucky and very competent Emperor to do substantially better while holding Constantinople.
To answer the OP, had the Laskarids remained at the helm of the Empire they would have had a stronger position in Anatolia and likely more internal cohesion... so long as they still get rid of Mouzalon. Many on this site talk about the Roman aristocracy as if it were some entirely parasitic entity that would happily allow the Empire to fall for their own financial benefit or some other cynical goal, but the reality is that any administration that fails to manage the elite members of their society is going to be faced with rebellion and conflict. Mouzalon was extremely unpopular; he had to go. Otherwise he's an albatross. Presuming they can ditch him somehow, and for the sake of the argument assuming they can nab Constantinople in similar circumstances, then... not a lot will be immediately different. The West will be coming for them, Charles of Anjou or not. Constantinople is too important a prize to give up without a fight. I seriously doubt the Laskarids will be able to prevent this. Actually taking Constantinople is no mean feat, but the Roman territory in Europe is extremely vulnerable.
In Anatolia the Romans were overrun for more reasons than 'fighting in Europe'. Laskarid popularity will help, but the Turkish tide will be difficult to resist. Characters such as Philanthropenos had some success in resisting, but it will take quite a vital Empire to successfully absorb the Turkish tide. They certainly won't succeed if Constantinople is lost, nor will they have a better shot if the army is wrecked fighting Latins. It was not impossible OTL for them to succeed, but I don't think the Laskarids were substantially better placed than the Palailogoi to do so. The reality for the 13th century Romans was that their challenges were much more external than internal.
Maybe. They didn't OTL, or at least not in the sense of retaking it. Replacing the ruling dynasty is far from enough to save the Roman Empire.
The fact that the Turks were able to recruit and sustain armies far larger than the Palaiologians did with the territories they just captured from the Romans indicates that something was very wrong with the Roman elite.The Turks were in many cases just replacing the Roman aristocracy at the top, with the Roman bureaucracy at the bottom left untouched. The Roman aristocracy by this period was much more stagnate than previous periods due to a long trend which started with the Komnenian alliance with the aristocracy. Mouzalon was an aberration to this(he was basically one of the New Men). New men are always unpopular with the aristocracy, but without new men people at the top, the leadership would be filled with deadwood. No society can last without fresh blood getting introduced to the top.
Last edited: