Print Page | Close Window

July,25th 1261-Recapture of Constantinopl

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4604
Printed Date: 28-Mar-2024 at 10:08
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: July,25th 1261-Recapture of Constantinopl
Posted By: Komnenos
Subject: July,25th 1261-Recapture of Constantinopl
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 03:00
I though you might want to celebrate with me and every other citizen of the "Cyber Basilea Romaion" this important day in our history, the 25th of July 1261.

On this very day, the great city of Constantinople, was finally recovered from the Latins and their Empire that has lasted 57 years from 1204 came to a well deserved end.
Although it was inevitable and long overdue, the recapture of the city was not so much the result of a long and arduous siege, but rather an accident.
A general of the Empire of Nicea , Alexios Strategopulos ( what a name!), who was stationed in Thrace with no more than a few dozen men, had heard that the entire Latin garrison of Constantinople was out on a raid on some small Greek island, and, with the help of some people on the inside, in the early hours of the morning of the 25th, he and his men slipped unnoticed through a little gate into a city, and having met no real resistance, could re-claim the city for its rightful Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologos.
The Latin King of Constantinople, Baldwin II, the last in line of unworthy and incapable rulers, could escape and was never heard of again.
The Emperor of Nicea Michael VIII, who was in Anatolia at the time, was as surprised of the sudden capture as everybody else, rushed as quickly as he could to Constantinople and entered the city on the 15th of August and was duly crowned Basileios of the Romaioi.
Ende gut, alles gut!

So, put the champagne on ice, raise your glasses with me tonight and toast to the successful recapture of Constantinople on the 25th of July 1261.



-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">



Replies:
Posted By: Cyprus
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 04:58
Yes, God save Michael VIII.(in spite of the fact that he was cruel and "rude") - but was last great emperor of Byzantines.
After 200 years in 1461(perhaps the same day) last capital city of Greeks fell into the turks slavery - it was Trebizond with its emperor David and his 5 sons.
What about this date - we should stay in mourning or grief.


Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 06:32
Originally posted by Cyprus

After 200 years in 1461(perhaps the same day) last capital city of Greeks fell into the turks slavery - it was Trebizond with its emperor David and his 5 sons.
What about this date - we should stay in mourning or grief.


You're right, it was the very same day, July the 25th, when Trebizond fell to the Ottomans. I wasn't going to mention that till tomorrow, in order not to spoil the party.
There so few days to celebrate in Byzantine history that we should make the most out the couple we've got!

-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">


Posted By: Cyprus
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 07:26

You're right, it was the very same day, July the 25th, when Trebizond fell to the Ottomans. I wasn't going to mention that till tomorrow, in order not to spoil the party.
There so few days to celebrate in Byzantine history that we should make the most out the couple we've got![/QUOTE]

So i must apologize for mentioning that day
But I am interested in latest byzantin epoch an that is why I know more sad dates than happy - but we should remember sad dates as year 1453 añd persons like Konstanin XI. - they may by memento for as even in this days - and we should also remember them because of their courage and nobleness.

I hope you understand my poor englis - you know I am not accustomed to dicsourse in english


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 11:15

 Point of interest today is also the day Constantine the Great was proclaimed Emperor in York by the British legions. Big day in history then.

 Its a great day, but also a tragic one because its the last time Byzantium would have something real to celebrate.

 

 

 



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 12:52

Hip, hip hooray for Michael VIII Palaeologus!

Does anyone know the details of the battle of Pelagonia in 1259 AD, which preceded the re-capture of the city?  It is kind of difficult to find primary source information on the battle, though I am sure Choniates and maybe Acropolites wrote about it.  Michael VIII and the Nicaeans fought the Franks of the Aechean Duchy.  My main interest is what was the makeup of Michael VIII's army?  I wonder what kind of units were in it.  I know there was a good deal of Turkish mercenaries from the Seljuk state, but they probably did not encompass the entire Nicaean force.  Any thoughts?



-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 13:32

 Its incredibly difficult to find much of anything from the recapture of Constantinople to 1453 even though I hear there are alot of sources about ive certainly never found any.

 What I want to know is how large was the Byzantine military firstly between 1204 and 1261 and then from 1261 onwards? what was it made up of? how effective was it? how if the empire was so weak did it survive to 1453 in the first place?



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 13:42

Originally posted by Heraclius

Its incredibly difficult to find much of anything from the recapture of Constantinople to 1453 even though I hear there are alot of sources about ive certainly never found any.

Sure there is!  Are you talking about primary sources, secondary sources, or both?  I have posted on AE before, a small bibliography on late Byzantine military and the Fall of Constantinople, 1453.  I would start with the Bartusis book listed below.  Here is the bibliography:

George Sphrantzes. The Fall of the Byzantine Empire: a Chronicle by George Sphrantzes, 1401-1477. Marios Philippides, trans. Amherst, university of Massachusetts Press, 1980.

Anonymous. Byzantium, Europe, and the early Ottoman Sultans, 1373-1513: an anonymous Greek chronicle of the seventeenth century (Codex Barberinus Graecus 111). Marios Philippides, trans. New Rochelle, NY: A.D. Caratzas, 1990.

Kritovoulos. History of Mehmed the Conqueror; translated from the Greek by Charles T. Riggs. Princeton University Press, 1954.

Ducas. Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks: an annotated translation of "Historia Turco-Byzantina". Harry J. Magoulias, trans. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1975.

Laonikos Chalkokondyles. A translation and commentary of the "Demonstrations of Histories", Books I-III. Nicolaos Nicoloudis, trans. Athens, Greece: Historical Publications St. D. Basilopoulos, 1996.

Secondary sources:

Donald Nicol. The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, 1993.

----. Church and Society in the Last Centuries of Byzantium. Cambridge University Press, 1979.

----. The Immortal Emperor: the life and legend of Constantine Palaiologos, last emperor of the Romans. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Mark C. Bartusis. The Late Byzantine Army: arms and society, 1204-1453. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992.

David Nicolle. Constantinople 1453: the end of Byzantium. Osprey Military, 2001.



-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 13:44

 Excellent  thanks.

 



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 18:51
May 29 1453 for me 


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 20:14

Originally posted by Heraclius

Excellent  thanks.

No problem!   Don't hesitate to send me a PM if you have any questions about the late Byzantine period.  I can also suggest a ton of journal articles if you need them.



-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 21:44
Sadly so much of the Byzantine army was made up of mercenary forces during this period. Often the Byzantines were paying soldiers of other nations they would most likely be fighting at some point in the future.

As to the short-lived Latin Empire I think that pretty much proves the West had little to offer compared to the Byzantines. The Byzantines kept enemies at bay for over a thousand years, and finally the West has its chance to replace the Byzantines. Without ever even having to deal with the aggressive Turks in the East the Latin Empire proved to be a total failure militarily, politically and culturally. Only under Henry did they achieve at least a tiny bit of success, and that was short lived. Equipped with the best military technology of the day and in possession of Constantinople itself the Westerners utterly failed. The Latins lasted less than 60 years and the Byzantines made it to over 1000, I think that is sufficient proof that the Byzantine state was neither effete nor cowardly.

Also good job Michael VIII, accomplishing something long overdue. If only you had produced a more worthy heir and done a little more about the problems on the Eastern frontier.


-------------


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 23:38

 Will do Byzantine Emperor

 I cant help but feel the more and more I learn about the empire, the more and more I feel it deserved better than what it got, the recovery of Constantinople is the last great moment in Byzantine and Roman history.

 After that it was a painful and utterly tragic decline from its former glory, i'd rather of seen Constantinople destroyed and the turks never stepped foot inside the city or the Nicaeans destroyed whilst they still had something worth fighting for, than the long drawn out humiliation the empire was subjected to by utterly unworthy peoples.

 The recapture of Constantinople did nothing for the empire and just made its final demise all the more painful and hard to read, Rome went down with a whimper in 476, Constantinople went down with a fight that has become legendary 1453, I cant help but feel Constantinople never deserved to go down at all.

  A far more worthy a people an empire and a final Emperor than Rome ever had.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 02:20
As for Michael Palaeologus, I have read several sources calling him 'unscrupulous'. Can anyone explain to me the basis for this claim?

-------------


Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 02:42
Originally posted by Belisarius

As for Michael Palaeologus, I have read several sources calling him
'unscrupulous'. Can anyone explain to me the basis for this claim?


I'm not quite certain why he should be more "unscroupulous" than any one else, and even if he was, it seems to me that this is a vital prerequisite and necessary professional qualification for the job he did.

Two events might have contributed to his notoriety, his ascent to the crown, during which as Co-Emperor he pushed his predecessor John IV Laskaris from the throne, and imprisoned and blinded him; and secondly, the rumour that Byzantine monies financed the "Sicilian Vesper" in 1282, the rebellion of the Sicilians against Karl of Anjou, that ended in the massacre of every French man and woman on the isle.
But blinding one's competitor was a long standing custom on the Byzantine court, and Michael wasn't the first and only one, and using diplomacy to further one's political ambitions was one of the strenght of the Empire throughout its history, so I'm still not sure why Michael is supposed to be "unscrupulous".

-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 05:21
I have to say I found the whole conspiracy theory of the Sicilian Vespers to be some of the most highly amusing history I've ever come across. The thought of the resolute Emperor, his back against the wall, suddenly pulling the ace from his hand and destroying his rival strikes me as a master stroke of political resourcefulness.

Aside from that there was also the incident of the Union of the Orthodox and Catholic churches which Michael pushed ahead with. This, more than anything else, tarnished his image in Byzantium. His move was understandable, he was desperately trying to avert another Western invasion while putting the chaotic Byzantine Empire back on its feet. But both Latins and Orthodox Christians cursed him after. The Latins couldn't comprehend the fact that the Emperor couldn't control his subjects' religious loyalties (he even had to imprison his own sister because she went against the policy). The Byzantines hated the fact that the man who gave them back their City from their Latins had then gone and sold their souls to them. He was even denied the proper ceremonial burial, his son Andronicus II forced to quietly lay it to rest in a hidden location in the countryside.

The Westerners interpreted his attempt at Church unity to be a cynical act of pragmatism to buy him time and stave off his enemies, perhaps it was. For that reason more than any other, for what some historians see as a man selling his nation's soul for wordly advantage have some called Michael unscrupulous. Yet I cannot accept that he was not making a genuine attempt at healing rifts, had it been cynical pragmatism he surely would have repudiated the Latin creed before he died. He did not, in the name of his Empire's safety he stuck by the unpopular policy right to his deathbed. Cursed by his people, he died knowing he would be much maligned, but that he had bought them time and opportunity to recover.


-------------


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 11:15

Originally posted by Constantine XI

Yet I cannot accept that he was not making a genuine attempt at healing rifts, had it been cynical pragmatism he surely would have repudiated the Latin creed before he died. He did not, in the name of his Empire's safety he stuck by the unpopular policy right to his deathbed. Cursed by his people, he died knowing he would be much maligned, but that he had bought them time and opportunity to recover.
 

That is exactly right, Michael VIII did not repudiate Latin Christianity, even when he was on his death bed.  It would have been far more expedient politically for him at home to have forsaken the Latin creed and reaffirm his Orthodoxy.  After he deposed and blinded the young Nicaean emperor John IV and brought on the wrath of the clergy and the patriarch Arsenius, his political standing in Constantinople was quite awkward, not to mention his religious standing after the reunion and filioque controversy.



-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 12:57

 Michaels reign was both good and bad the recovery of Constantinople is great but by debasing the currency and alienating himself from the populous and not leaving a worthy successor he hastened the decline of the empire which I think may well have done better to focus on Asia Minor rather than the balkans.

 It seems to me by retaking Constantinople Asia Minor was practically sacrificed as the empire focused so much on the Balkans.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 16:43
A lot of good that did them. You know, they never would have lost Constantinople in the first place if they had a navy. It is really mind-boggling how an ancient maritime civilization like the Greeks abandoned the seas like they did.

-------------


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 22:52

Originally posted by Belisarius

A lot of good that did them. You know, they never would have lost Constantinople in the first place if they had a navy. It is really mind-boggling how an ancient maritime civilization like the Greeks abandoned the seas like they did. 

I am not sure that the Byzantines abandoned their navy.  It was still running strong at the time of the Arab invasions during the reign of Leo III.  I think, rather, that the Byzantine government gradually went bankrupt from spending on expensive mercenaries and from the breakdown of the themes, and had no money to put into the maintenance of a navy.  After the disaster of of the Fourth Crusade, the Byzantine imperial government really did go bankrupt.  Also, Michael VIII's Nicaean Empire was a landlocked power ; the Seljuk Turks had almost surrounded it and cut it off from the western port cities of Anatolia.  When he became emperor at Constantinople again, the lack of funds, and the lack of a navy from the Nicaean period translated into the restored Byzantine Empire.



-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2005 at 23:52
I don't know about that... By 1204, the Byzantine navy consisted of 20 rotting galleys. They did not even have a merchant fleet. Perhaps the Byzantines attempted to emulate Roman land-power. However, even then the Romans had a large navy. 

-------------


Posted By: Cyprus
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2005 at 03:07
As I can remeber we spoke about Trapezun(Trabzon..)and I mentioned taht Trabzon fell into hands of turks exactly 200 years after recapture of Constantinopole - so I found an short history of these empire - here it is.(including list of emperors)


Upon the division of the Roman Empire into two parts, Trabzon went under the domain of Rome with the Eastern Black Sea region. After the second half of the 1st century, Trabzon gained importance and quickly started developing. New commercial opportunities were created in Trabzon when roads connecting Persia to upper Mesopotamia were built during the reign of Emperor Vespasianus. (67-79A.D.) It then became a Roman state when Emperor Arianus started to rule. (98-117A.D.) Emperor Hadrianus helped the city and had a harbor built in his name. A hippodrome, a theater, an inner fortress and aqueducts were built which changed the appearance of the city.
This lasted until 258 A. D. when Goths invaded and looted the city during the time of Emperor Valerianus. (253-260A.D.) Although the city was reconstructed, it never gained its old beauty. It became an important religious center during the expansion of Christianity and as a result, many churches and monasteries were built one after another. The attacks of the Moslem Arab armies against the region from 705 A.D. onwards affected the city to a great extent. As of 1098, the Christian governors of Trabzon tried very hard to protect their independence against Byzantium, but they were not successful. Emperor Justinianus I had new fortresses built in order to defend the city and also had water brought to the city. Stefanos, the Byzantine historian, in his books wrote about the constructional works realized during the period of Justinianus. In the 11th century Trabzon gained even more importance by being a military base. Anatolian Seljuks attacked the city and it was conquered by Sultan Melikshah (1107-1116) but was taken back by Governor Theodoros Gabras. When the Latrines invaded Istanbul Alexius Komnenos, the son of Andronikos Komnenos I fled away and came to Trabzon. Here he declared himself the emperor. Therefore, once again the state of Pontus was established in Trabzon. (1204-1461)
Significant developments were seen while under Komnenos' rule. However he lost a great part of his land when he lost the battle against David Palaiologos, the Emperor of Iznik. Emperor Andronikos I who replaced Komnenos tried hard to regain independence from the Seljuks who were ruling the country. He sent his ships to Sinop for looting purposes and won a sea battle against the Seljuks. In return, Alaaddin Keykubad I surrounded the city from both the land and the sea, but could not conquer it.
Trabzon was a vital harbor on the Erzurum-Tebriz and Black Sea-Persia trading routes in the second half of the 13th century. Mongolians were in power in the beginning, however the Turkomans took power later on.
The first serious Ottoman attempt to conquer Trabzon was during the time of Emperor Kalo Ioannes IV (1447-1458). Sultan Murat II sent his fleet but was not able to seize the city.
Following the conquest of Istanbul, Emperor Kalo Ioannes IV paid taxes to Fatih Sultan Mehmet and in the meantime incited Pope Calixos III and Uzun Hasan against Fatih. He also permitted Byzantine families who ran away from Istanbul to settle in his country. Fatih Sultan Mehmet sent Hizir Bey to Trabzon. Trabzon was faced with the unexpected arrival of the Ottoman navy. The emperor yielded by proposing to pay tax to the amount of 1000 gold pieces per year. He sent his brother, David Komnenos, accompanied by Hizir Bey, to Istanbul to come to an agreement. However, Fatih Sultan Mehmet increased the amount to 3000 gold pieces per year. In the meantime the Emperor did not give up his assaults. While he was paying taxes, he sent messengers to Akkoyunlu Uzun Hasan proposing that he marry his daughter Katerina. He also sought a way to make an agreement with Karamanoglu Ibrahim Bey. After the death of Emperor Kalo Ioannes, his brother David Komnenos was crowned. He sent Katherina to Uzun Hasan. She changed her name to Despina and played an important role in the Akkoyunlu palace. David Komnenos decreased the amount of taxes he was paying and also incited the people living on the lands between Caucasia and Burgond Duchy. The ensuing riots resulted in battles, and Fatih Sultan Mehmet conquered Amasra, Kastamonu and Sinop and reached Trabzon. Although the emperor was prepared to accept all the conditions set forth by the Ottomans, Trabzon was conquered by the Turks on October 26, 1461. Then Trabzon became an important center on the eastern and central Black Sea coastal strip. Yavuz Sultan Selim prior to his becoming the sultan, administered the city as its governor.
________________________________________
DYNASTY LISTING
To the Byzantine Empire 395-1204
COMNENUS
Alexius I 1204-1222
GIDOS
Andronicus I 1222-12325
COMNENUS
John I 1235-1238
Manuel I 1238-1263
Andronicus II 1263-1266
George 1266-1280
John II 1280-1284
Theodora 1284-1287
Alexius II 1287-1330
Andronicus III 1330-1332
Manuel II 1332
Basil 1332-1340
PALEOLOGOS
Irene 1340-1341
ANACHOUTLOU
Anna 1341
COMNENUS
Michael 1341-1342
John III 1342-1349
Alexius III 1349-1390
Manuel III 1390-1417
Alexius IV 1417-1429
John IV 1429-1458
David 1458-1461


Posted By: Jazz
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2005 at 04:30
Originally posted by Komnenos

I though you might want to celebrate with me and every other citizen of the "Cyber Basilea Romaion" this important day in our history, the 25th of July 1261.
......
So, put the champagne on ice, raise your glasses with me tonight and toast to the successful recapture of Constantinople on the 25th of July 1261.



Sorry I missed this party...

I have similar feeling towards Venice like you said in a different thread - I also have a pet-hate for them as well - I not a fan of it's history as well (which I guess you can call "Early-Ransack").

Anyways, I wonder why it took so many years (I mean, 57 years!) for the re-conquest to happen?  After Latin's defeat to the Bulgarians in 1205, the Latin Empire just sort of puttered along....This brings me to another one of my East-Roman what-ifs:  What if 1204 hadn't happened, how would the Emperors at Constantinople dealt with a weakened Bulgarian and Seljuk realms (after the Mongol Invasions)?


-------------
http://www.forums.internationalhockey.net/index.php?/index.php?referrerid=8 - International Hockey Forums


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2005 at 08:46

 Jazz "What if 1204 hadn't happened, how would the Emperors at Constantinople dealt with a weakened Bulgarian and Seljuk realms (after the Mongol Invasions)?"

 I doubt Byzantium would have survived very long had 1204 not happened, unless of course a good emperor was to emerge with the energy and skill of the Komnemi. The empire was falling to pieces anyway, perhaps if Byzantium had been strong during the Mongol invasions the Mongols would have turned their attention to Byzantium and destroyed it anyway? I think the empire was close to expiring by 1204 unless something drastic happened, the fact it survived until 1453 is remarkable.

 



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2005 at 05:39
It took so long to reconquer because the numerous Byzantine splinter states, Balkan states and Turkish encroachments ensured the forces which should have vanquished the Latin Empire early on were fighting eachother. When looking at Byzantium we see they are masters of diplomacy. Prior to 1204 there was a balance of power in the Balkans inspite of huge Byzantine weaknesses, 1204 destroyed that balance of power and the result is a rampage of Ionnitsa of Bulgaria through the Balkans. The Latins never possessed the Byzantine mastery of subtle diplomacy, hence the near immediate collapse of their empire shortly after they stole it.

-------------


Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 16:25
It is sad that people are naturally stubborn. The two remaining splinter states, Nicaea and Trebizond, needed each other. Nicaea had military strength, but not wealth. Trebizond had wealth, but no military strength. Should they have united, I suspect a much different history between the Byzantines and the Turks.

-------------


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 02:20
It would be a nice idea, but sadly once you are Emperor you tend to want to remain so, not least of all to stop from being killed should the next guy in charge suddenly descend into paranoia. I think an alliance between the two would have been much more realistic an idea. When one of the Byzantine states is attacked by the Turks, the other sweeps into Turkish territory from the rear of the attacking Turkish army. Both states were geographically well placed to do that. Ultimately Nicaea should have kept the coastal cities in her European provinces and concentrated on winning back the vital lands in Asia, the fact she failed to do this more than anything else cost her ultimately. I see in the Nicaean state pre-1261 alot of promise and virility, it is so sad it seemed to wither away after. 

-------------


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 11:24

Originally posted by Belisarius

It is sad that people are naturally stubborn. The two remaining splinter states, Nicaea and Trebizond, needed each other. Nicaea had military strength, but not wealth. Trebizond had wealth, but no military strength. Should they have united, I suspect a much different history between the Byzantines and the Turks.

We must not forget the Byzantine successor state in Epirus and Thrace.  It was a rather tough principality and took on the the encroaching Bulgars in the north and the rapacious Frankish Crusader barons in the Peloponnesus and the Morea.  If the states of Epirus, Trebizond, and Nicæa had taken it upon themselves to join forces against all of the foreign enemies in Byzantium, the rebuilding of Constantinople and the Byzantine state would have been a lot easier.  One of the main things the Byzantines lacked upon the accession of Michael VIII was unity, both from a religious and a political standpoint.



-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 13:46
Yes, but most of Epirus and all of the other successor state in Thessaloniki eventually fell to Nicaea. The Epirotes united with the Thessalonikans through marriage, I believe. The Epirotes and the Nicaeans were often in conflict, and through these conflicts, the Nicaeans proved to be the stronger. Though the Epirotes were much diminished by the reestablishment of the Byzantine Empire, it might have been nice to add some extra muscle.

A little confusion here... was not the 'Morea' the Frankish term for the Peloponnesus? 

-------------


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2005 at 12:41

Originally posted by Belisarius

Yes, but most of Epirus and all of the other successor state in Thessaloniki eventually fell to Nicaea. The Epirotes united with the Thessalonikans through marriage, I believe. The Epirotes and the Nicaeans were often in conflict, and through these conflicts, the Nicaeans proved to be the stronger. Though the Epirotes were much diminished by the reestablishment of the Byzantine Empire, it might have been nice to add some extra muscle.

I know, I was just saying that it was a shame the Byzantine successor states could not put down their differences and join forces against the common enemies -- the Bulgars, Crusader barons, and Seljuk Turks.

Originally posted by belisarius

A little confusion here... was not the 'Morea' the Frankish term for the Peloponnesus? 

Yes, but specifically the southwestern part of the Peloponnesus; have you seen the palace of the Palaeologi on the hill in Mistra?  Well, that area and along the western seaboard.



-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com