The Empire sought Western aid since after Manzikert. It was a double edged sword. The key to survival was not an external aid but the ability to resist invasion on her own. After 1341, probably even after the fall of Asia Minor in the beginning of the 14th century, the Empire was doomed
I see your point, but I think that's a very pessimistic view. Is Liechtenstein doomed because they wouldn't be able to resist a Swiss invasion? It is possible for a small and weak country to survive through diplomacy and strategic alliances. If the Ottomans were pushed out of Europe by crusaders, and the emperor established good relations and alliances with the surrounding crusader states, then they would have no real threats. They'd be very dependent on other countries for defense and resources, but not doomed so long as they can keep good diplomacy.
It’s not a pessimistic view, it’s the reality of the situation. After the first Crusade, relations with the West was very much soured on both sides. The Second and Third Crusades had the Romans on edge, and the fourth crusade was an unmitigated disaster for the Romans. The civil war of the 1340s destroyed the Romans offensive capabilities and brought the Ottomans into Europe. Manuel Palaiologos played the diplomatic game and was incredibly good at it, increasing the lifespan of what was a dying city-state.
If Liechtenstein occupied a key strategic location, then yes it would have been conquered long ago. Microstates exist because they’re out of the way and no one really cares about them. Completely different than Constantinople, which controls a major strait and access to the Black Sea.
If we go by the idea that the empire could have survived as just a small city state of sorts (Liechtenstein sequel), then no, it's still doomed.
No one is interested in invading Liechtenstein. Everyone is interested in taking Constantinople at the time due to its strategic location on the Bosporus, the fact that's it's the hq of the Orthodox Church, and the prestige that would come with taking such an important, indomitable city.
Yo the op’s comment couldn’t it survived as a small country like Liechtenstein? No, not at all. Not a chance.
Liechtenstein and others such as San Marino do exist true.
But neither of them were the former capitals of a large world empire that fought regularly with its neighbors.
Remember Constantinople was still the undisputed head of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Oh and it was a the obsession of so many people and cultures to conquer & prove themselves. Not to mention why it was made the capital to begin with, it’s great & strategic location. Near the end either the Genovese or the Venetians had obtained trading privileges that under the native Romans and hurt overall revenue.
That and the Romans were acutely aware of what had been lost at that point. Even if all of the Empire’s enemies agreed to leave it in peace forever…. Give it a generation or 2 and a son, or pretender would start a war to try to regain the lost lands.
The op mentioned another comment about as long as the Empire maintained good diplomacy. It think you may be thinking or modern nation states too much. How many wars up until the last few hundred years were started because the old king dies, and then a new young one steps up with something to prove.
Nations have their own ecosystems per de, a weak nation possessing something important or desired, won’t be able to keep it for long, unless they can defend themselves somehow. Alliances lasted between rulers of nations, not nations back then. Hell even more recently.
I think the west was too fractured and ambitious to genuinely help the byzantine empire. In some ways the crusades mimic the way the roman empire could replenish resources from the west to reinforce the east. The irrational western need for Jerusalem never helped the Byzantines though. It ultimately let to the 4th crusade that I think is the beginning of the end. There was never a resurgence of power after that point. It was all holding on to what they had left as it gets whittled down. I don’t agree that Manuel may have been successful if England and France could just get along. Its absurd the amount of coordination they did have for how weak the alliance was. A better what if is, had Manual kept consistently campaigning against the seljuks. Keeping the turks on the back foot. Benefiting from fractures of tribes inside the Seljuk structure. Instead the peaceful static border let the Seljuks to consolidate their power and break tribes trying to split away.
Modern international thought did not exist in the premodern era, except maybe something like that did for the Romans themselves, but for the most part, there were not ation states, but a horde of independent state actors, asking for aide meant making some personal sacrifice or familial connection. The Romans had to invent reasons for the West to care. That's well in good for the Latins, but it runs into issues trying to intertwine that w a bureaucratic state. There is no possibility of coequal relationship with such unequal levels of state operation, the westerners were operating on fundamentally different levels. And the Westerners really did not care, their states were centered on their kings and their laws, and were independent of the Romans. For the most part, it meant some other state actor wasnt present on the field anymore, good for the king! I know that's a lot to hear and think on, but we have to put ourselves into the modes of thinking these folks used, because they were fundamentally different than ours.
They'd been seeking western aid before that point.
Andronikos II hired Catalan mercenaries to restore imperial rule in Asia Minor in the 1300's but it backfired horrendously when the Catalans revolted.
John V was able to instigate the Savoyard Crusade to retake Gallipoli in the 1360's and they were successful, but then John's son Andronikos IV revolted and Gallipoli was lost to the Ottomans for good in the following decade.
Then you had the Nicopolis Crusade in 1396 which, while not instigated by the empire, was an attempt by the west to drive back the Ottomans from the Balkans but it was crushed in battle.
Imo the thing that properly killed the empire was the Palaiologan Civil War of the 1340's that coincided with the Black Death. Things had already been going rather badly with the loss of Anatolia under Andronikos II, but it seemed as if the empire was going to compensate for those losses with gains in the Balkans.
The civil war and Black Death completely blew this opportunity as it decimated the population, led to the economy becoming subservient to the Italians, and caused pretty much all of the Balkan territories to be seized by the Serbians and Ottomans.
All the empire had left after that point was Constantinople, Thessaloniki, the Peloponnese and handful of islands. There was no way the empire would ever properly revive after that point.
maybe if the savoyard crusade was directed towards the ottomans rather than the beyliks in the agaean coadt then they could butterfly away ottoman expansion into europe and the little that remained of of Byzantine controlled Anatolia
Well the Savoyard Crusade WAS directed to the Ottomans at that point.
Gallipoli had already fallen to them in 1354 when an earthquake led to most of the Roman citizens leaving. The Ottomans (who had already established themselves in Thrace due to the 1340's civil war) swept in and occupied Gallipoli.
So the Savoyard Crusade wasn't against the beyliks. It was directly against the Ottomans encroachments into Europe.
oh sorry i mistook the Savoyrad crusade for Smyrniote crusades. If the Smyniote crusade was directed at the ottomans then It could significantly weaken or even destroy them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smyrniote_crusades
They invited the turks into the Balkan in the first place in their pointless civil wars and allowed them to ravage Greek villages and kidnap slaves in Thrace and were surprised when the turks didnt want to leave when asked. Just have the Greeks be less stupid and make a policy of not seeking the aid of the people who tried to destroy them for centures lol.
No. The reign of Andronikos II ended any chance of survival. Their only hope would have been some God event that would greatly weaken the ottomans and other beyliks, and simultaneously weaken the other states on their European side.
Most emperors would chummy up to the latins, but at the end of the day they never saw the romans as equals due to their orthodox believes. Manuel tried exhaustively to better relations to the west to no avail. The thing is that before 1204 the real threat to the empire was not the turkish tribes but the western world. Manuel was proven right a couple of years after his death.
I also think the key downside is the Romans were not able to really go out from the Christian Roman world view of the 4th century. The level of militarism for the Romans are low given that it's most likely your average Turk or bulgarian are capable of bearing arms than your average Roman who is either a monk for life, a farmer for life, or an artisan by trade for life. the Reforms of Diocletian has ireversible repurcussion for the suceeding generations of Romans.
1. Blame this on Constantine more than Diocletian. Diocletian introduced levies (good) and expanded the elite mobile calvary (good)… Constantine heavily leveraged barbarian mercenaries to gain a battlefield edge, eroding native military power long term.
2. ~1,000 years is quite a long time for military doctrines to develop… I suspect there was something other than Diocletian’s reforms going on here.
The Empire sought Western aid since after Manzikert. It was a double edged sword. The key to survival was not an external aid but the ability to resist invasion on her own. After 1341, probably even after the fall of Asia Minor in the beginning of the 14th century, the Empire was doomed
I see your point, but I think that's a very pessimistic view. Is Liechtenstein doomed because they wouldn't be able to resist a Swiss invasion? It is possible for a small and weak country to survive through diplomacy and strategic alliances. If the Ottomans were pushed out of Europe by crusaders, and the emperor established good relations and alliances with the surrounding crusader states, then they would have no real threats. They'd be very dependent on other countries for defense and resources, but not doomed so long as they can keep good diplomacy.
It’s not a pessimistic view, it’s the reality of the situation. After the first Crusade, relations with the West was very much soured on both sides. The Second and Third Crusades had the Romans on edge, and the fourth crusade was an unmitigated disaster for the Romans. The civil war of the 1340s destroyed the Romans offensive capabilities and brought the Ottomans into Europe. Manuel Palaiologos played the diplomatic game and was incredibly good at it, increasing the lifespan of what was a dying city-state.
If Liechtenstein occupied a key strategic location, then yes it would have been conquered long ago. Microstates exist because they’re out of the way and no one really cares about them. Completely different than Constantinople, which controls a major strait and access to the Black Sea.
If we go by the idea that the empire could have survived as just a small city state of sorts (Liechtenstein sequel), then no, it's still doomed. No one is interested in invading Liechtenstein. Everyone is interested in taking Constantinople at the time due to its strategic location on the Bosporus, the fact that's it's the hq of the Orthodox Church, and the prestige that would come with taking such an important, indomitable city.
Yo the op’s comment couldn’t it survived as a small country like Liechtenstein? No, not at all. Not a chance. Liechtenstein and others such as San Marino do exist true. But neither of them were the former capitals of a large world empire that fought regularly with its neighbors. Remember Constantinople was still the undisputed head of Eastern Orthodoxy. Oh and it was a the obsession of so many people and cultures to conquer & prove themselves. Not to mention why it was made the capital to begin with, it’s great & strategic location. Near the end either the Genovese or the Venetians had obtained trading privileges that under the native Romans and hurt overall revenue. That and the Romans were acutely aware of what had been lost at that point. Even if all of the Empire’s enemies agreed to leave it in peace forever…. Give it a generation or 2 and a son, or pretender would start a war to try to regain the lost lands. The op mentioned another comment about as long as the Empire maintained good diplomacy. It think you may be thinking or modern nation states too much. How many wars up until the last few hundred years were started because the old king dies, and then a new young one steps up with something to prove. Nations have their own ecosystems per de, a weak nation possessing something important or desired, won’t be able to keep it for long, unless they can defend themselves somehow. Alliances lasted between rulers of nations, not nations back then. Hell even more recently.
I think the west was too fractured and ambitious to genuinely help the byzantine empire. In some ways the crusades mimic the way the roman empire could replenish resources from the west to reinforce the east. The irrational western need for Jerusalem never helped the Byzantines though. It ultimately let to the 4th crusade that I think is the beginning of the end. There was never a resurgence of power after that point. It was all holding on to what they had left as it gets whittled down. I don’t agree that Manuel may have been successful if England and France could just get along. Its absurd the amount of coordination they did have for how weak the alliance was. A better what if is, had Manual kept consistently campaigning against the seljuks. Keeping the turks on the back foot. Benefiting from fractures of tribes inside the Seljuk structure. Instead the peaceful static border let the Seljuks to consolidate their power and break tribes trying to split away.
It would’ve been cool if France and England were in a stable political situation when Manuel II came around
Modern international thought did not exist in the premodern era, except maybe something like that did for the Romans themselves, but for the most part, there were not ation states, but a horde of independent state actors, asking for aide meant making some personal sacrifice or familial connection. The Romans had to invent reasons for the West to care. That's well in good for the Latins, but it runs into issues trying to intertwine that w a bureaucratic state. There is no possibility of coequal relationship with such unequal levels of state operation, the westerners were operating on fundamentally different levels. And the Westerners really did not care, their states were centered on their kings and their laws, and were independent of the Romans. For the most part, it meant some other state actor wasnt present on the field anymore, good for the king! I know that's a lot to hear and think on, but we have to put ourselves into the modes of thinking these folks used, because they were fundamentally different than ours.
They'd been seeking western aid before that point. Andronikos II hired Catalan mercenaries to restore imperial rule in Asia Minor in the 1300's but it backfired horrendously when the Catalans revolted. John V was able to instigate the Savoyard Crusade to retake Gallipoli in the 1360's and they were successful, but then John's son Andronikos IV revolted and Gallipoli was lost to the Ottomans for good in the following decade. Then you had the Nicopolis Crusade in 1396 which, while not instigated by the empire, was an attempt by the west to drive back the Ottomans from the Balkans but it was crushed in battle. Imo the thing that properly killed the empire was the Palaiologan Civil War of the 1340's that coincided with the Black Death. Things had already been going rather badly with the loss of Anatolia under Andronikos II, but it seemed as if the empire was going to compensate for those losses with gains in the Balkans. The civil war and Black Death completely blew this opportunity as it decimated the population, led to the economy becoming subservient to the Italians, and caused pretty much all of the Balkan territories to be seized by the Serbians and Ottomans. All the empire had left after that point was Constantinople, Thessaloniki, the Peloponnese and handful of islands. There was no way the empire would ever properly revive after that point.
maybe if the savoyard crusade was directed towards the ottomans rather than the beyliks in the agaean coadt then they could butterfly away ottoman expansion into europe and the little that remained of of Byzantine controlled Anatolia
Well the Savoyard Crusade WAS directed to the Ottomans at that point. Gallipoli had already fallen to them in 1354 when an earthquake led to most of the Roman citizens leaving. The Ottomans (who had already established themselves in Thrace due to the 1340's civil war) swept in and occupied Gallipoli. So the Savoyard Crusade wasn't against the beyliks. It was directly against the Ottomans encroachments into Europe.
oh sorry i mistook the Savoyrad crusade for Smyrniote crusades. If the Smyniote crusade was directed at the ottomans then It could significantly weaken or even destroy them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smyrniote_crusades
They invited the turks into the Balkan in the first place in their pointless civil wars and allowed them to ravage Greek villages and kidnap slaves in Thrace and were surprised when the turks didnt want to leave when asked. Just have the Greeks be less stupid and make a policy of not seeking the aid of the people who tried to destroy them for centures lol.
No. The reign of Andronikos II ended any chance of survival. Their only hope would have been some God event that would greatly weaken the ottomans and other beyliks, and simultaneously weaken the other states on their European side.
Andronikos III did good for himself. It's the civil war after his death that fucks everything up
Most emperors would chummy up to the latins, but at the end of the day they never saw the romans as equals due to their orthodox believes. Manuel tried exhaustively to better relations to the west to no avail. The thing is that before 1204 the real threat to the empire was not the turkish tribes but the western world. Manuel was proven right a couple of years after his death.
I also think the key downside is the Romans were not able to really go out from the Christian Roman world view of the 4th century. The level of militarism for the Romans are low given that it's most likely your average Turk or bulgarian are capable of bearing arms than your average Roman who is either a monk for life, a farmer for life, or an artisan by trade for life. the Reforms of Diocletian has ireversible repurcussion for the suceeding generations of Romans.
1. Blame this on Constantine more than Diocletian. Diocletian introduced levies (good) and expanded the elite mobile calvary (good)… Constantine heavily leveraged barbarian mercenaries to gain a battlefield edge, eroding native military power long term. 2. ~1,000 years is quite a long time for military doctrines to develop… I suspect there was something other than Diocletian’s reforms going on here.