Historical Discussion: The State of the Eastern Roman Empire Post-1204. Was 1204 Really the Start of the Decline?

[Putnam]

I know that the general understanding of the Post-1204 Empire was one of decline and eventual fall in 1453, but from what I've read the Empire (under the Nicaea Faction) from 1204-1282 seemed perfectly capable of not just holding its own against her enemies in both east and west, but also pushing back against the tide of history and reconquering territory in Europe, even reconquering Constantinople from the Latins in 1261. I would argue that the Empire from 1204-1282 doesn't sound like an Empire in decline, but an Empire recovering from the 4th Crusade. You don't go from only holding territories in Anatolia to holding substantial lands in Europe to then being crowned Emperor in Constantinople if your state is in decline.

I would also argue that the decline didn't really begin to set in until after 1282, during Andronikos II's reign, due to the policies of Michael VIII, and that the fall of the Empire, short of outside intervention, became inevitable following the 2nd Palaiologoi Civil War in the 1340s.

Of course, that's just one man's opinion. What do y'all think?

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

Honestly, in my opinion it greatly destabilized the Byzantine Empire. You had crusaders sacking Constantinople, an act so shocking that the pope firmly disavowed the Fourth Crusade. If you want the Byzantine Empire to remain stable, maybe get rid of the Venetian Doge who lead the Fourth Crusade: Enrico Dandalo. Oh and the Byzantine imperial pretender who caused all of the Fourth Crusade in the first place by promising to pay crusaders if they would just depose the Byzantine government, but I cannot remember his name at the moment.

 

[Lalli]

Fourth Crusade really damaged Byzantine greatly and caused permanent damage for that. It wasn't doomed yet but definitely couldn't rise as notable power anymore.

 

[Evil Crusader]

Fourth Crusade really damaged Byzantine greatly and caused permanent damage for that. It wasn't doomed yet but definitely couldn't rise as notable power anymore.

Hard agree with this. Post-restoration Byzantium was only able to project significant diplomatic weight outside of its core interests of Balkans + Anatolia once, and the strain was really felt.
It isn't dead yet, far from it, but it no longer enjoyed the wealth, might, and security it still had in dark years such as 717, 811, or even 1082.

 

[Nuraghe]

Fourth Crusade really damaged Byzantine greatly and caused permanent damage for that. It wasn't doomed yet but definitely couldn't rise as notable power anymore.

but this was now a path that had already begun for centuries ( the decrease in the direct influence of Rome in neighboring and non-neighbouring territories ) since at least the post-Basil II / Komnenos period, where with the constant growth of "barbarian" states in Western Europe ( aka Latins ) and the arrival of a new ethnic group that quickly became the main political player in the Muslim world ( the Turks ) the gap between them and the empire was gradually diminishing, making Rome less capable of being able to play on multiple fronts at once, because by now her rivals were on equal terms with her, so revealing herself on one front became dangerous for the state, certainly the particularism of the political institutions and the serious blow to prestige deriving from the capture of Constantinople, in the hands of an enemy army, were important from the point of view of the future evolution of the empire, but I honestly believe that the real problem of Rome was the its innumerable civil wars and of course the little ability of the Constantinopolitan elite to adapt to a world in full change is that it saw them as one of the many actors in the political landscape, rather than the main one, something that some emperors were able to understand ( like the three main Komnenos and Michael VIII ) but they were unable to spread this idea in the rest of the Roman administration, which instead maintained imperial aims and projects of an important level but with the resources of a state of medium size

although I agree that the real problems for the empire came with the Angelos dynasty and the subsequent succession struggles of the Paleologos ( due to the semi-republican system still existing in the imperial institutions ), but the failure to assimilate Bulgaria may also have had a bearing on the history of the empire, because it meant having another powerful neighbor with clear expansionist aspirations in the Roman territories

 

[AkhenatenOrRamses]

1204 is generally considered the beginning of the end for the Byzantines, because although the Nicene Empire managed to get the imperial throne back together and kick out the Latin Empire, the new Byzantine Empire was never the same as before. This was no longer a major power in Europe and the Levant, but rather a regional power at best that was never able to stop the Ottomans from blobbing all over Asia Minor and the Balkans.

In my opinion you'd need to look back to the reigns of Manuel I and Alexios II for the causes of the ERE's long term decline - the empire is never a major power after Alexios gets deposed by Andronikos.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The Fourth Crusade was to Byzantium much as the Third-Century Crisis was to Rome -- yes, the Empire managed to bounce back to a degree, but even so it was never as stable, secure, or powerful as it had been before the disaster.

 

[AkhenatenOrRamses]

The Fourth Crusade was to Byzantium much as the Third-Century Crisis was to Rome -- yes, the Empire managed to bounce back to a degree, but even so it was never as stable, secure, or powerful as it had been before the disaster.

I'd argue the Battle of Adrianople is a closer analogue to the Fourth Crusade than the Crisis - after the Crisis, Diocletian and Constantine managed to give the Empire a few years of stability. After Adrianople, however, the Empire's fate was sealed - Theodosius and his successors were all heavily reliant on barbarian born mercenary soldiers and of course this was a recipe for disaster whenever these troops got unhappy.

 

[Mars aeternum]

The sack of Constantinople was indeed a major shock and the start of a period of decline and fragmentation of the Roman power but the situation wasn't irreversible.

The Ottoman beylik started it's explosive expansion from roughly the same borders of the Empire of Nicaea.

A complete restoration of the 1204 border might be difficult in the short term, but some more lucky/competent alt-Palaiologoi could kick the crusaders out of mainland Greece and stabilise the border at Anatolia.

 

[Elfwine]

Hard agree with this. Post-restoration Byzantium was only able to project significant diplomatic weight outside of its core interests of Balkans + Anatolia once, and the strain was really felt.
It isn't dead yet, far from it, but it no longer enjoyed the wealth, might, and security it had enjoyed even in dark years such as 717, 811, or even 1082.

Same here. 1204-1282 may show that there was still strength left, but that's a far cry from the empire of 1261 (picked for when Michael VIII regained Constantinople) being as wealthy, powerful, and secure as it was prior to 1204.

Could it have survived with a post-1204 POD? Yes. It might even have regained more than was held in 1204.

But that's getting into what could have been, not whether or not it did decline after 1204 OTL.

 

[The Undead Martyr]

Pre-1204 was not exactly sunshine and roses, and even if 1204 was a massive shock that unmoored the Empire there is a reason that the total collapse came more than a century later (and the final fall a century after that). Conversely, 1204 itself was not a bolt from the blue, but a fire erupting in a warehouse with a great many carelessly stored materials...

Bulgaria had already seceded, and likely would have given the Empire quite a headache even without the Crusaders smashing things up. Likewise, the Latins were already demonstrating a striking disregard for Byzantine territory- leaving aside the Normans and Venetians, the Crusaders had already seized Cyprus, and there was little the Empire could have done about it.

 

[Nuraghe]

Pre-1204 was not exactly sunshine and roses, and even if 1204 was a massive shock that unmoored the Empire there is a reason that the total collapse came more than a century later (and the final fall a century after that). Conversely, 1204 itself was not a bolt from the blue, but a fire erupting in a warehouse with a great many carelessly stored materials...

Bulgaria had already seceded, and likely would have given the Empire quite a headache even without the Crusaders smashing things up. Likewise, the Latins were already demonstrating a striking disregard for Byzantine territory- leaving aside the Normans and Venetians, the Crusaders had already seized Cyprus, and there was little the Empire could have done about it.

furthermore it is good to remember that already before 1204, Rhomania was witnessing a spread of " independence " movements at a local level : first in Cyprus, then in Bulgaria ( which was the worst managed, given that Isaac II could reincorporate the region if he acted decisively at the beginning of the revolt, furthermore even under Michael VIII there was the possibility of retaking part of Bulgaria but resources were now limited ), Trebizond, southern Greece etc , which went to aggravate the already tense political situation of the Empire, but all this arose from an extremely widespread provincial discontent with the policies of Constantinople, which almost ironically, is one of the complaints that Egypt, Syria and the Latin provinces used centuries ago to "free themselves" from central control ( I'm making it extremely simplified, I know the causes are much more complex ) but the fact remains that Byzantium / Rome was no longer able to assimilate its minorities as completely as it could in the past ( perhaps also due to the lack of human resources to be transferred locally to the territories to be Romanised, in significant numbers, and difficulty in finding a steady flow of currency to fill state coffers ), and this combined with a very explicit and vigorous xenophobia, exacerbated conflicts within the state

 

[Elfwine]

I'd put the fall of Constantinople and events that followed in its wake as a a great deal more significant than for example, Bulgaria becoming independent or losing Cyprus (to a rebel before the crusaders had anything to do with it, even).

It's the difference between a car that needs some work done on it to run properly and one that needs to be extensively rebuilt to run at all, for a rather crude comparison.

 

[The Undead Martyr]

I'd put the fall of Constantinople and events that followed in its wake as a a great deal more significant than for example, Bulgaria becoming independent or losing Cyprus (to a rebel before the crusaders had anything to do with it, even).

It's the difference between a car that needs some work done on it to run properly and one that needs to be extensively rebuilt to run at all, for a rather crude comparison.

True, but these are not as distinct as one might think- the better analogy is driving recklessly on worn down tires and then getting your car wrecked. The "maintenance" contributed fairly directly to the collapse.
Absent imperial weakness the Latins wouldn't have been able to show up and seize Constantinople (a seizure itself a comedy of errors, owing among other things to the military and economic weakness of the government) and the Latins would never have endured in Greece as long as they had- it's telling that the Bulgarians are the ones who really killed the Latin Empire rather than the Greeks. The Latins were a hammer blow against a state already cracking under its own strain.

 

[Elfwine]

True, but these are not as distinct as one might think- the better analogy is driving recklessly on worn down tires and then getting your car wrecked. The "maintenance" contributed fairly directly to the collapse.

I'm not saying they're entirely distinct, I'm saying that one is a great deal more significant than the other here as far as "decline".

Worn out tires are not a sign that the entire car needs to be rebuilt in order for someone to drive it at all, but the state of the car after the wreck sure sure is such a state.

Absent imperial weakness the Latins wouldn't have been able to show up and seize Constantinople (a seizure itself a comedy of errors, owing among other things to the military and economic weakness of the government) and the Latins would never have endured in Greece as long as they had- it's telling that the Bulgarians are the ones who really killed the Latin Empire rather than the Greeks. The Latins were a hammer blow against a state already cracking under its own strain.

Not much argument here.

 

[Putnam]

I agree that the real problems for the empire came with the Angelos dynasty

Nah. The real damage was done by Andonikos I. The real sin of the Angeloi was that their progenitor was not the Emperor the Empire really needed in that moment. Had he become Emperor in better times he would've made a decent Emperor.

 

[DankStalin]

I agree with what some of the guys are saying right here, the empire of Nicea was doing a great job holding and fighting back, and sure it is a empire recovering some power, but to me the Greeks never again would have a chance to fully recover. Pre 1204 the Greeks had a (kinda slight) chance to recover and push back their enemies (despite the Angeloi doing everything possible to screw things up), but post 1204 the Greeks are now clinging on, trying to recover a fraction of the past glory and power.

 

[Atrahasis]

It's in decline, but it can still be saved, Andronikos II is the actual point of no return, probably. Though, the failure of Andronikos is probably a consequence of the policies of his father, trying to reunite the churches never worked well for Byzantium, and caused unnecessary instability.

 

[Tanaka did nothing wrong]

I would argue that even after 1204, the fate of the empire wasn't determined. The Lascarids managed to not only reorganise the state, but also reclaim parts of the empire in Macedonia and Thrace that had been outside imperial control in 1204. Bulgaria, which proved to be a rather menacing power in 1204 - 1205, had been largely weakened by the 1260s; the Seljuks had also been weakened during the same period, whereas in the first decade of the thirteenth century they intervened more than once in the remaining territories of the Byzantines in Asia Minor; Serbia wasn't able to project its power in Macedonia yet.

The main issue in my view at least was the extremely unfavourable diplomatic situation the empire found itself in shortly after the reconquest of Constantinople. The emergence of Charles of Anjou as a major force in Italy was to create an intractable political and diplomatic problem for Michael VIII, which was to consume most of his energies and perhaps most of the resources of the empire, without any alternative. I think that if the pressure from the West and the Papacy was (substantially) lesser than OTL, then Michael could have managed perhaps to consolidate the position of the empire more effectively - perhaps completing the reconquest of mainland Greece, managing to place Bulgaria more firmly in the imperial sphere of influence and enjoying greater success in the Aegean against the Venetians. In a best case scenario, he could perhaps bequeath Andronikos II a more stable and less exhausted state facing fewer threats than OTL, which would be a much better starting point for the latter than what he faced IOTL. It would still be a tall order, but with the right combination of luck and skill, the Byzantines could manage perhaps to prevent the establishment of the emirates in western Asia Minor and maintain their frontiers for the most part.

 

[RedSword12]

People vastly overestimate the importance of 1204. Mind you, if they could fail to successfully hold the most fortified city in the world, they were already in a bad place. The empire was already imploding under the pressure of ineptitude, corruption, instability, repeated usurpations, etc. The successful sack of the capital was a symptom, not a cause. The focus on 1204 as a "turning point" IMHO is a consequence of shock, and the Byzantinaboo desire to blame the Latin "barbarians" as a way to avoid admitting the "civilized" Romans caused their own downfall. Honestly the forced relocation of the center of Byzantine power away from Constantinople may well have actually led to an improvement in competence of Byzantine leadership, who performed much better than the utterly inept authorities whose misrule had rendered the empire so vulnerable.