The Empire of Nicaea does not conquer Constantinople in 1261 but instead focuses on defending its Anatolian territories

Ricardolindo

Well-known member
Roughly 10-15% historically did, at least during the Komnenian Restoration; they were largely Hellenized and adopted Christianity as part of the Roman pushback in Anatolia. To be fair, though, by the 1200s the Turks were much more established politically, religiously and demographically in the Anatolia highlands. The Mongol invasions do offer a possibility though, through the damage inflicted, for the Greeks to make some serious gains again.
As I said, though, the Mongol invasions drove a new wave of Turks to Anatolia, which actually strengthened the Turks.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
But could the Greeks still experience 1204 while later on making such gains?

I think so, Manuel left a strong inheritance for Nicaea and they managed to compound it. Their division of focus and thus resources, however, doomed them. Here, it's moreso if we go with the PoD I suggested; the Bosporus becomes the dividing line, and enables the Empire to focus on the East as the Mongols clear the way.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
I think so, Manuel left a strong inheritance for Nicaea and they managed to compound it. Their division of focus and thus resources, however, doomed them. Here, it's moreso if we go with the PoD I suggested; the Bosporus becomes the dividing line, and enables the Empire to focus on the East as the Mongols clear the way.

Wouldn't that still require the Nicaeans to conquer the Latin territories east of the Bosporus? Or is that comparably easier to do? But Yeah, doing this and then heading east seems like a good idea. Let the Latins deal with the Slavs, et cetera on their own.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
As I said, though, the Mongol invasions drove a new wave of Turks to Anatolia, which actually strengthened the Turks.

A new wave of immigration, sure, but I think it's hard to make the claim the Turks were strengthened when the Rum Sultanate was effectively collapsed and replaced by the Mongols as the main power in Anatolia. Nicaea, retaining a centralized authority would thus have the military edge still while the collapse of Turkish institutions would've made them more vulnerable to both Christianization and Hellenization efforts.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Wouldn't that still require the Nicaeans to conquer the Latin territories east of the Bosporus? Or is that comparably easier to do? But Yeah, doing this and then heading east seems like a good idea. Let the Latins deal with the Slavs, et cetera on their own.

Yes, especially if the Epirotes retake Constantinople; it's also worth noting that map from earlier is off. Dorylaeum, with its important fortifications leading into the highlands, remained in Byzantine/Nicaean hands, as attested by Muslim authors in 1215.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Yes, especially if the Epirotes retake Constantinople; it's also worth noting that map from earlier is off. Dorylaeum, with its important fortifications leading into the highlands, remained in Byzantine/Nicaean hands, as attested by Muslim authors in 1215.

Thanks for the correction. Interestingly enough, this map likewise appears to make the same error:

ELCQrZsWwAAs841.jpg
 

stevep

Well-known member
Would the Nicaeans actually have confidence that the Mongols will eventually leave if they are given transit through Nicaean territory in order to fight the Latins, though?

A Nicaean-Mongol alliance against the Mamluks does sound fun. IMHO, the Mongols should have sought a decisive confrontation in the Galilee sooner, while they could still sustain a much larger army on the field there:


Depends on what you mean by leaving. As I said it would require Nicaea to accept a subordinate status to the Mongols, especially when the Khan for the latter was Hulagu. The Mongol stance seemed to be simple, especially with relatively small states such as Nicaea at the time. Accept Mongol over-lordship and you generally tend to get treated well, especially if you can provide useful aid against other foes. Reject it and, unless you pull off a lasting victory like the Mumluks did, you get crushed.

The big question is whether a state that claimed to be the successor to Rome and also a - if no longer the major - significant Christian state submit to a pagan eastern horde. Although ~800 years prior the eastern empire, then much stronger, seems to have been willing to pay heavy tribune/protection money to Attila. As such there is an historical precedence although Attila never actually gained access to Constantinople - or other major imperial cities in the east.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top