The Empire of Nicaea and the Fall of the Roman Empire to the Ottomans

[Manuel I Komnenos]

When Constantinople fell to the Crusader hordes in 1204 during the chaos that followed, Thedoros Laskaris who was proclaimed Emperor at the time the Crusaders were entering the city, managed to flee to Asia Minor along with his family, court, many aristocrats and the Patriarch. There, he created a new Empire with capital the city of Nicaea, which from, the Empire took its name. In the years that followed, the Laskarid dynasty managed to strengthen their Empire, defeat the Latins that were marching through Asia Minor and stabilize the front with the Seljuks in the river Meander. In the first half of the 13th century the Empire of Nicaea became probably the most organized and most powerful state in the region of the former Roman Empire. The single purpose of the Laskarid (and later the Palaiologean) dynasty was the recapture of the Queen of Cities, Constantinople. In the July of 1261 a general of Michael VIII Palaiologos (the first of the dynasty) managed to recapture Constantinople while the Latin army was fighting in some island and the Roman Empire was reborn.

All this time from the fall of Constantinople in 1204 to the recapture of the city in 1261, the Nicaeans had managed to hold the Seljuks very effectively, without suffering any great defeats such as those of Matzikert and Myriokephalon. The Asian Minor provinces of their Empire were prospering, the population was growing the economy of the Empire was strong. But, following the recapture of Constantinople the policy of the Palaiogeans proved to be fatal. Immediately, the effort of the Empire was placed solely on the West, in the Balkans. There, the Byzantines started waging wars for numerous years against the already declined Latin baronies and duchies of mainland Greece. The Fall of Constantinople had to be avenged and the "heretic" Latins had to be taken away from the lands of the Empire. All the resources and the manpower of the rich Asia Minor (provinces which had been prospering without facing serious troubles for almost 60 years) was used towards this effort. After long lasting wars, the Romans managed to defeat the Latins and they slowly recaptured mainland Greece. But without noticing it, the Byzantine Emperors had greatly weakened the defense of the Asian Minor provinces, opening the way for the invading Seljuks and later the Ottomans. Instead of focusing on the real danger of the East, which was waiting the right time to strike the Romans fought the Latins, in the West because after the destruction that they had caused, the Latins were feared and hated even more than the Seljuks whom with the Romans were constantly signing. While the Seljuks were divided and their Sultanate was declining, the Byzantines were easily dealing with them, but when the strong Ottomans came in power they easily captured the remaining Roman provinces of Asia.

From now on, the game was lost for the Romans who saw their lands gradually lost to the Ottomans, not only in Asia, but also in Europe, finally coming to the surrouning and the fall of Constantinople.
Here, someone will ask: "In the past, following the battle of Matzikert, the Byzantine Empire had lost control of Asia Minor, but Alexius Komnenos managed to recapture it, using resources, money and manpower coming only from the Western provinces of the Empire, in the Balkans. Why couldn't the Byzantines do the same in the 14th century, that is recapture Asia Minor using their power in the Balkans?"

The problem is found on the completely different situations of the end of the 11th-12th and the 14th centuries. In the 11th-12th century, at the time of the Komnenian Emperors, the Byzantine Empire was still strong, even following the fall of Asia Minor to the Seljuks. Under the guidance of a good Emperor, like Alexius the Empire showed that it possessed the resources to carry on the War. The Balkan provinces were very rich and prosperous, the Empire controlled much of the trade in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean Seas, making it easy for the Byzantines to retain a big amount of Byzantine and mercenary soldiers. Another fact is that the Bulgarians and the Serbs who had been successfully defeated by Basil II before a few years were too weak and divided in the 11th-12th centuries, making it easy for the Romans to control their Kingdoms and keep them a part of the Byzantine Empire. The situation of the Balkan areas of the Empire was very favorable and along with a bit of help from the 1st Crusade which was successfully used by Alexius it was made possible for the Byzantines to recapture Asia Minor and drive the Seljuks towards the central Asia Minor.


In the 14th century the economy of the Empire was in an awful state. Control of the seas had been lost to the Venetian and the Genoa fleets for two reasons.

1st) The Byzantine Emperors, in order to save money, they dissolved the Fleet and in order to wage their wars they had to rely heavily on the Italian cities' fleets.
2nd)The Byzantine Empire had signed laughable trade agreements with Venice and Genoa a procedure that has started during the time of the Komnenian dynasty. The Italians didn't have to pay money in order to travel in the Byzantine Seas, they had created big communities in the Byzantine ports (in Constantinople it's been said there were 60.000 Italians) and had gained complete control of the trade of silk, spices and every other good coming from the Anatolian cities. The Byzantine merchants lost their power and the Byzantine coffers weren't receiving any tariffs at all.

Aside from all this, whenever one Italian city felt that her trade rights were being hurt by the Byzantine policy, she would send her fleet to raid the Byzantine coasts dealing a great amount of damage and further hurting the Byzantine economy.

The Serbs and the Bulgarians had not only gained their independence following the death of Manuel I Komnenos, but they had also started to expand towards the original Byzantine areas and later towards the areas of the Latin Empire. In the 14th century the Serbs and the Bulgarians had started to expand even into mainland Greece causing further problems to the Byzantine economy and military capabilities.

to be continued

[The Noble Lord]

Interesting article Manuel, and I think that we are all very much familiar with decline of Byzantium and what were the causes that led to the decline and fall of the empire.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

Most interesting read indeed, but if I may add a few points.

The collapse of the their provinces in Asia minor was partly to blame on the foreign policies of the early Palaiologian dynasty. Indeed by turning on the declining latin holdings and eventually recapturing Constantinople itself Nicea had to shift a lot of resources there and then overscretch em to the point of exhaustion as other powers decided to act against it (the house of anjou that ruled sicily and was gathering papal support to reclaim the city for example). Perhaps one can say that Nicea wanted more than it could chew.

Those provinces though supported the rather rebelious Patriarch of Constantinople Arsenios who had excommunicated him (if I recall corectly Michael rose to the throne as regent for the infant John Laskaris and some faction did not like the treatment he gave to him later on), then add that Michael Palaiologus was attempting to form a union of the churches later on.
In general not only were the Anatolian provinced abandoned at the time to fight latins but they were also rather "rebelious" and in constant strife with the imperial authority.

I do not agree that the early Ottomans were a powerfull force though, rather the Byzantines were completely collapsing. Considering the Catalan mercenary company was able to halt the Ottomans and then after Emperor Andronikus assasinated their leader they turned against their previous employers as well.

[jo the greek]

Most interesting read indeed, but if I may add a few points.

The collapse of the their provinces in Asia minor was partly to blame on the foreign policies of the early Palaiologian dynasty. Indeed by turning on the declining latin holdings and eventually recapturing Constantinople itself Nicea had to shift a lot of resources there and then overscretch em to the point of exhaustion as other powers decided to act against it (the house of anjou that ruled sicily and was gathering papal support to reclaim the city for example). Perhaps one can say that Nicea wanted more than it could chew.

Those provinces though supported the rather rebelious Patriarch of Constantinople Arsenios who had excommunicated him (if I recall corectly Michael rose to the throne as regent for the infant John Laskaris and some faction did not like the treatment he gave to him later on), then add that Michael Palaiologus was attempting to form a union of the churches later on.
In general not only were the Anatolian provinced abandoned at the time to fight latins but they were also rather "rebelious" and in constant strife with the imperial authority.

I do not agree that the early Ottomans were a powerfull force though, rather the Byzantines were completely collapsing. Considering the Catalan mercenary company was able to halt the Ottomans and then after Emperor Andronikus assasinated their leader they turned against their previous employers as well.

you have to think that during this time Byzantines were afraid still another Crusade against themselves
so wanted to protect more their west front

[Faramir D'Andunie]

you have to think that during this time Byzantines were afraid still another Crusade against themselves
so wanted to protect more their west front

I do understand that for the Byzantines Medieval Romans of the era allowing crusaders holding Constantinople was unacceptable but Nicea ended up wasting all of its resources to reclaim it first to the point that almost nothing of what Michael reclaimed could be kept out of exhaustion.

Their focus should have been to expand/build their power base in Anatolia, not rush into adventures into Thrace and Makedonia. Anatolia at the time was a collection of various sultanates and chiefdoms and the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia not a unified state.

Don't get me wrong I think Michael Palaiologus was an extremely capable emperor, the way he handled the western threats shows this, but perhaps he spent his state's resources and energies on the wrong focus.

Perhaps this was their ultimate failure, that they were obsessed with their views of Oikoumene and roman imperium and unable to look down to reality and follow sensible goals. But saying these with hindsight centuries later from a chair is another matter.

[jo the greek]

I do understand that for the Byzantines Medieval Romans of the era allowing crusaders holding Constantinople was unacceptable but Nicea ended up wasting all of its resources to reclaim it first to the point that almost nothing of what Michael reclaimed could be kept out of exhaustion.

Their focus should have been to expand/build their power base in Anatolia, not rush into adventures into Thrace and Makedonia. Anatolia at the time was a collection of various sultanates and chiefdoms and the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia not a unified state.

Don't get me wrong I think Michael Palaiologus was an extremely capable emperor, the way he handled the western threats shows this, but perhaps he spent his state's resources and energies on the wrong focus.

Perhaps this was their ultimate failure, that they were obsessed with their views of Oikoumene and roman imperium and unable to look down to reality and follow sensible goals. But saying these with hindsight centuries later from a chair is another matter.

Michael you speak of that guy that one a Major battle by lack ?

[Herakleios]

But, following the recapture of Constantinople the policy of the Palaiogeans proved to be fatal. Immediately, the effort of the Empire was placed solely on the West, in the Balkans. There, the Byzantines started waging wars for numerous years against the already declined Latin baronies and duchies of mainland Greece. The Fall of Constantinople had to be avenged and the "heretic" Latins had to be taken away from the lands of the Empire. All the resources and the manpower of the rich Asia Minor (provinces which had been prospering without facing serious troubles for almost 60 years) was used towards this effort. After long lasting wars, the Romans managed to defeat the Latins and they slowly recaptured mainland Greece. But without noticing it, the Byzantine Emperors had greatly weakened the defense of the Asian Minor provinces, opening the way for the invading Seljuks and later the Ottomans. Instead of focusing on the real danger of the East, which was waiting the right time to strike the Romans fought the Latins, in the West because after the destruction that they had caused, the Latins were feared and hated even more than the Seljuks whom with the Romans were constantly signing. While the Seljuks were divided and their Sultanate was declining, the Byzantines were easily dealing with them, but when the strong Ottomans came in power they easily captured the remaining Roman provinces of Asia

Its not like Michael had much of a choice, really. The Angevin Charles of Sicily was a serious threat to the newly restored empire and he openly maintained the ambition of restoring the Latin Empire and had the support of the Venetian fleet and later Pope Martin in this matter, not to mention he had already become master of parts of Albania. If Michael had not devoted so much capital and energy on the Western front, the latin empire may well have been restored. It is very much true that the Byzantines managed to crush the two offensives that Charles had launched against them, however, these were mere advance guards, and the army and fleet that were to depart for the conquest of Constantinople were much bigger and to be led by the King himself. Soon, however, Charles became involved in the War of the Sicilian Vespers, and had it not been by the subsidies sent by Michael to the Sicilian rebels, and the opportune intervention of the Aragonese (with whom, of course, Michael had established contact)and their brilliant admiral Roger de Lauria, the Latin Empire may well have been restored. It was not Francophobia that led Michael to focus his attention on the west at all, but rather the very serious threat that the Kingdom of Sicily had always posed to the Empire since its very founding by Norman adventurers. Don’t forget how closely the Kingdom of Sicily came to destroy Byzantium during the time of Robert Guiscard and Bohemund, or the humiliating defeat that Guiscard dealt to Alexius at Durazzo, it may be hard to notice now, but the Kingdom of Sicily during the 12th and 13th centuries was quite a force to be reckoned with in the Mediterranean, and under the aggressive and expantionist Charles of Anjou, it was even more dangerous, especially after the events of the Fourth Crusade. The fact that many Western powers had started to expand in the Mediterranean genuinely changed the strategic situation for Byzantium, who no longer could focus in the East while ignoring the West (as the disaster of the Fourth Crusade proves), and since the Seljuks were declining, it is only natural that Michael paid more attention to the more active enemy (Charles), Osman having yet to start his campaigns.

[The Noble Lord]

The truth is that Byzantium just had too many enemies at the same time and it couldn't do anything really but to prolong it's slow dying process. The sack of 1204 was crucial, that is the turning point and from then on it was the downhill for the Byzantium.

[jo the greek]

The truth is that Byzantium just had too many enemies at the same time and it couldn't do anything really but to prolong it's slow dying process. The sack of 1204 was crucial, that is the turning point and from then on it was the downhill for the Byzantium.

Or werent able to produce army to match with the difficulties or avoid civil wars or reunite the parts with an ethical power

[The Noble Lord]

Or werent able to produce army to match with the difficulties or avoid civil wars or reunite the parts with an ethical power

I've said it before in CBUR forum. The Byzantines were victims of their own success. The unstoppable greed and bickering caused them to loos their empire among other things. The pathetic thing is that they fought among themselves when the enemy was literally at the gates, they tried backstabbing each other and undermining unity! Shame.

[Exarch]

good stuff and higlhy intriguing as well!!
u've ceratinly inspired me to read up more of byzantine history in its wilderness yrs as a rump state in Nicaea;

so even after losing constantinople, if the new empire of Nicaea had simply focused on taking over the rest of anatolia and antioch to secure their suthern front-with an alliance with the armenians, would byzantium have been in a more secure footing to take and hold constantinople and the balkans?

[jo the greek]

good stuff and higlhy intriguing as well!!
u've ceratinly inspired me to read up more of byzantine history in its wilderness yrs as a rump state in Nicaea;

so even after losing constantinople, if the new empire of Nicaea had simply focused on taking over the rest of anatolia and antioch to secure their suthern front-with an alliance with the armenians, would byzantium have been in a more secure footing to take and hold constantinople and the balkans?

This wasnt to happen there were rivalties between them

Alexius Comnenus managed a lot influence Armenian and Latins

But after the FAll the Emperors had problem to prove their Role among their own people

[Faramir D'Andunie]

good stuff and higlhy intriguing as well!!
u've ceratinly inspired me to read up more of byzantine history in its wilderness yrs as a rump state in Nicaea;

so even after losing constantinople, if the new empire of Nicaea had simply focused on taking over the rest of anatolia and antioch to secure their suthern front-with an alliance with the armenians, would byzantium have been in a more secure footing to take and hold constantinople and the balkans?

Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't. It's easy to speculate for these kind of things... but let's speculate a bit more simply to keep the discussion going.

The Lascarids in Nicea had managed to build a stable state with well defended borders and a strong economy. What did recapturing Constantinople offer them other than a half ruined city, some prestige among the upper classes (as far as the common people were concerned it was a city filled with sin) and the ire of countless western lords and kings who would try to restore the Latin emperors there?

Of course I assume that by not trying to reclaim Constantinople itself threats like the Charles of Anjou in Sicily would not arise as badly as they did during the reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos.

[The Noble Lord]

The Lascarids in Nicea had managed to build a stable state with well defended borders and a strong economy. What did recapturing Constantinople offer them other than a half ruined city, some prestige among the upper classes (as far as the common people were concerned it was a city filled with sin) and the ire of countless western lords and kings who would try to restore the Latin emperors there?

I came across few historians where they speculate that it was mush better for the Byzantines in the long term if they didn't recapture Constantinople when they did because it gave them nothing really like you said and it shifted their power and focus from Asia minor where it was much needed to the Balkans since main threat came precisely from the Asia minor in the form of small Ghazi beylik which became known as the Osmanli or the Ottomans.

[Exarch]

was constantinople still a rich city after 1204? it certainly sits on a key trading location between east and west and north and south.
the taxes from that city would've been impressive-more so than Nicaea, i'm thinking

[Manuel I Komnenos]

was constantinople still a rich city after 1204? it certainly sits on a key trading location between east and west and north and south.
the taxes from that city would've been impressive-more so than Nicaea, i'm thinking

It's been said that Galatas, the city opposite to Constantinople which was owned by Genoa had managed to earn more money than Constantinople from the tariffs..

[jo the greek]

It's been said that Galatas, the city opposite to Constantinople which was owned by Genoa had managed to earn more money than Constantinople from the tariffs..

and sustain a significant military power

[Faramir D'Andunie]

was constantinople still a rich city after 1204? it certainly sits on a key trading location between east and west and north and south.
the taxes from that city would've been impressive-more so than Nicaea, i'm thinking

It's been said that Galatas, the city opposite to Constantinople which was owned by Genoa had managed to earn more money than Constantinople from the tariffs..

Don't forget that the Italians in Galata had grand merchant fleets and maritime interests all over the Med. I can't see how Nicea could pull the same without having comparable fleets to the Italian republics. Also one can question if Galata would be able to have the same earnings without certain trade agreements they had managed to sign.

Plus we have to keep in mind that the using tax money to fund a mercenary army one of the reasons that slowly led to a crumbling military.

Perhaps if Despotate of Epirus was more succesfull in the Balkans it would be doable, though in that case I easy see a civil war between them and Nicea.

Anyhow I do indeed believe that at the time for the Lascarids of Nicea recapturing Constantinople... well... it would only be doable if noone would threaten their eastern holdings at all for a good 100 years as keeping it required to use all the resources at their disposal. And there is no indication that western kings would not continue to attempt to reclaim it.

[jo the greek]

Don't forget that the Italians in Galata had grand merchant fleets and maritime interests all over the Med. I can't see how Nicea could pull the same without having comparable fleets to the Italian republics. Also one can question if Galata would be able to have the same earnings without certain trade agreements they had managed to sign.

Plus we have to keep in mind that the using tax money to fund a mercenary army one of the reasons that slowly led to a crumbling military.

Perhaps if Despotate of Epirus was more succesfull in the Balkans it would be doable, though in that case I easy see a civil war between them and Nicea.

Anyhow I do indeed believe that at the time for the Lascarids of Nicea recapturing Constantinople... well... it would only be doable if noone would threaten their eastern holdings at all for a good 100 years as keeping it required to use all the resources at their disposal. And there is no indication that western kings would not continue to attempt to reclaim it.

A mercenairy can be recruited and dispanded at your choice so i think they used cause of economic profit

What do you mean about Despotate of Epirus pls elaborate

[Manuel I Komnenos]

A mercenairy can be recruited and dispanded at your choice so i think they used cause of economic profit

That's not really true.
When the Byzantines tried to disband the Catalan mercenary company, these mercenaries almost ruined the Empire.