What if Andronikos II Palaiologos had done something different (ROME 1282 onwards)

[G-Megas-Doux]

More as a companion thread to the thread regarding the potential survival of the Western Roman Empire. I ask what should the East Romans have done following the death of Michael VIII Palaiologos?

Michael died in 1282; by 1288 his dynasty had expanded the Roman borders to the largest extent they would ever achieve before suffering several small collapses and revivals.
http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wisem...line&Fall.html
http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wisem...an/19Maps.html

Above are examples of some interesting maps found from one place to serve as an example of the fluctuation of Roman fortune in the preceding centuries. Probably the greatest shock and comeback would be during the late sixth early seventh century when attacks on all fronts lead to much land being overrun and Constantinople being under siege on three occasions. The territory is large but geographically spread and isolated with only the African province having not suffered invasion yet. However concentration and consolidation allowed reconstitution of the Empire despite the rise of Islam into a feasible state which would survive largely intact despite a sudden contraction until the fourth crusade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_VIII_Palaiologos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzanti...dynasty#Legacy

Above is a general overview of the period we are discussing and the challenges that faced the successors of Michael. If I were to have a slight dig at Andronikos II, I would probably be viewing him under the criteria of Machiavelli. We have a ruler who does who debases his military strength for to purchase the favour of the people by lowering taxes. He recognised one enemy to campaign against yet he did not destroy his first enemy which was the immediate threat to the realm. He failed to fix or replace institutions designed to consolidate the state. In this I mean that he did not reform the currency or administration and he destroyed the navy, lowered the military and brought in mercenaries. He failed to keep his advisors in check leading to the loss of capable leadership. The only thing that he did do was to move to where he thought the problem would be and focus on it, this is at least laudable.

My initial suggestions would have been that clearly an alliance with Hungry would have served best. Ladislaus IV was king during this period. A difficulty would be that Naples was allied with Hungry and the Capet house of Anjou would succeed Andrew III(the usurper). So having fought a war during Michael VIII’s reign with Naples getting Hungry onside would have weakened both Naples and Serbia allowing full concentration on reconstituting the Empire. Following this; important efforts should have been made to increase and improve the navy with the intent of defeating the Venetians and reclaiming Athens, Naxos, Achea and Crete. Only with naval superiority could they hope to flank the Ottomans and other Anatolian states striking from the coasts.

The increased hegemony of Hellas and the seas which surround it would have lead to an economic boom that would have allowed a more equal sharing of the tax burden without loss of military prowess. Further the new lands would have lead to the opportune formation of a more cost and combat effective force to be enfranchised that would be loyal to the Empire.

My final recommendation before the conquest of Anatolia would have been the re-conquest of Cypress. A land lost to the Romans since the Angoli dynasty and the vasalisation or conquest of Trebizond. This would have brought the Romans to the territorial extent almost equal to that under the reign of John Comnenus.

However these are only my suggestions. Others may have a differing view and opinions regarding the challenges faced and options to overcome them would be welcome for discussion.

I have placed this in the alternative history section as it is more of a critique and consider alternate methods rather than an a constitution of only saying what happened in the period. The fun thing is that action does not happen in a vacuum, so if we offer one option and method of improving the Roman position we need to consider what would have happened in states that would take issue and oppose or ally with the Roman state.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Frankly, IMO their biggest blunder was in the war with Bulgaria: they lost at Melniko and several other battles, which set the stage for Serbia to wreck their holdings in Greece. Had they won those battles, the Romans would have effectively reconquered most of the Eastern Balkans, barring Karvuna and Vidin. This would have freed up their army to move back to Anatolia and prevent the fall of some of their major holdings, like Nicomedia and Nicaea.

I don't know much about this period, although I find the 14th century very interesting.

EDIT: funny thing is though, I just picked up a book from my Grandfather's house on Michael Palaiologos (1256-1282). It's from the 70's but should be an interesting read.

[Cyclops]

I think the damage done by the Latin conquest in 1204 was fatal to the Empire, and the Palaelogi were as unable to rule securely as the Comneni,. The military families of the eastern Empire had ripped the social fabric of the theme apart through greed, and begun playing for the throne in a sick game of dynastic one-upmanship. From time to time an Alexios or a Manuel might scrape together a decent army and win some small campaigns, and John Comnenus actually stabilised the empire for a bit, but the military settlement was fragile and based squarely on a mixture of overmighty dynatoi and unpopular Frankish pronoia, both of who,m had eyes on the throne themselves.

For the ERE to survive there needed to be another Basil II to harshly cut back the privileges of the military families, and make amore permanent settlement for the thematic military. in one sense they paid too much attention to the military (understandably as military families), to the expense of rebuilding the economic base.

The ERE is often criticise for the way they turned over emperors but I think it had a meritocratic element. Basil's dynasty came to power from a very low background, and in turn had competent co-emperors imposed during their reign like Nikephorus and John Tzimisces. "Byzantine politics" may be a derogatory term but I think the ERE fell because they failed to depose the hopeless Zoe and instead played "marry the heiress" long enough to empty the treasury and embolden the military families to begin their play for the throne. These military families built their own holdings at the expense of the state, both in and out of office, and failed to strongly re-establish the economic and social basis of the Roman state.

[bigdaddy1204]

Looking at the Byzantine Empire, going back from 1453, what was the latest time the empire could have turned things around and saved the situation? Some say 1354, when the Turks captured Gallipoli. But I believe the real turning point comes in the reign of Andronikos II (1282-1332). In the years up to 1282, Byzantium had been a rising power, gaining new territories. By the time Andronikos II died, Asia Minor was lost, the state was utterly powerless and a whisker away from oblivion. Italian ships fought civil war in the Bosporus while the empire was at their mercy. The income of the Italian colony at Galata was many times greater than that of Constantinople. The capital was crammed with refugees fleeing the Turkish conquest of Anatolia, Thrace and Greece had been ransacked and laid waste by the Catalan company and Turkish warbands, and the empire looked on the brink of extinction.

Andronikos II could have done things differently. At first, he did the right things. He reduced the crippling taxes which had been suffocating the people. He restored the Orthodox church and ended the fake union with Rome, thus restoring the happiness of the people. But unfortunately, he also made drastic cuts to the army and abolished the navy entirely. This was a colossal mistake, leaving Byzantium totally at the mercy of foreign powers. He failed to protect western Asia Minor from the Ottomans, losing the heartland territories of the empire as a result.

A scenario that has Andronikos II do things differently would ideally involve the following: don't abolish the navy. Don't make such cuts to the army. Do pay attention to Anatolia, preferably by constructing castles, garrisoning the cities, and campaigning to capture territory at the frontier. With the fragmentation of Turkish power at the time, a truly concerted effort may have yielded some useful territorial gains. It might have been possible to push back the frontier, helping to secure the heartland territories in western Asia Minor. This should probably have been Andronikos' primary concern for his whole reign. Success might have meant the recovery of some lands on the Black Sea coast such as Sinope, linking the empire back up with Trebizond in the east. It might also have involved the recovery of the fortress at Dorylaeum, built by Manuel I Komnenos a century earlier. In addition, territories such as Attaleia on the south coast might be recovered. Such moves would greatly have strengthened the Byzantine empire, restoring the situation in Anatolia to a level not seen since 1180, before the Fourth Crusade.