Irl his epilepsy led to his premature death at the age of 36 or 37, it’s also believed by some scholars to have negatively influenced his rational thinking and harmed his relationship with many of his courtiers, including Michael Paliaologos. Without epilepsy Theodore would have been able to personally lead his forces against his opponents and, I believe, would eventually be able to successfully beat Bulgaria and Epirus back and to reconquer Constantinople, as well as many other important territories. I also believe Theodore would’ve been able to successfully curb the influence of the nobility (which he had attempted to do with limited success on account of his illness). Whenever Theodore died (possibly in his mid 50’s considering when his father and grandfather died), he would leave the now restored empire in the hand of his fully grown son who would’ve had time to learn from and rule with his father. While there’s a lot of wild cards that could be pulled and quite a few things that could go wrong, I think the empire would be in much better hands in this timeline. Across their half a century of rule the Laskaris dynasty had proven themselves very competent and in my opinion could have eventually led the empire to a restoration of their pre fourth crusade borders, if not surpassing that. Obviously Anatolia can never be fully reconquered and reromanized, the heartlands were solidly Turkish and Muslim at this point, but the series of events that led to the rise of the ottomans (and the final fall of the empire) would have almost certainly been prevented.

However things obviously could have gone entirely differently and maybe the empire would still be doomed to fall, and I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts on this scenario.

Tzaches whas a Turkic Byzantine mercenary general who captured smyrna in the 1080s he made a bid for the Emperorship in 1090.he made plans to attack Constantinople with a joint pechneg-turkic army but he didn't and by 1093 hed been killed by the sultan of Rum.what would have happened then if he'd succeeded?

A while ago, I saw a post talking about saving the empire by prolonging an emperor's life. This time, let's do the opposite: how about you save the empire by shortening an emperor's life by two decades?

My pick is Andronikos II. He died in February 1332, so this time, he'll die in 1312, thus stopping the damage that he was dealing to the empire. There are definitely earlier picks that would've done more in the long run, but I wanted to pick one towards the end of the empire's life.

Was the self-designation as “Roman” a phenomenon confined to the intellectual class, or did the common people living in agricultural settlements have a consciousness of themselves as “Roman” too?

If not, would the alternative be something more broad like “Christian” or more narrow, such as their native region?

Don't get me wrong, I see the Fourth Crusade as an incredibly disruptive and destructive event, especially in terms of cultural destruction. But I believe that the popular connotation of it as the event that caused the ultimate fall of the Byzantine Empire to be absolutely wrong and based in Western-centric views. Not only does it fall into the usual (and often politicized) narrative that frames the Western world as the single causative actor, it also paints the Romans themselves as passive and without any agency, including any agency for making bad decisions and do self-destructive actions.

For all we know, the empire was in a freefall since at least Manzikert, which caused the loss of its most populous and wealthiest part. This was entirely self-destructive, starting with the conditions that enabled the defeat in the first place (neglect of the thematic system and treachery within the ranks) and ending with the destructive civil war in which entire provinces were handed over to the Turks without a fight. The First Crusade allowed a modest recovery, but then we have another cycle of self-destruction with actions of figures like Andronicus I Komnenos or Alexios III Angelos. The post-Fourth Crusade recovery ends with the inept Andronicus II and especially with the actions of John Kantakuzenos, who made what still seemed like a viable state to be irredeemable. And this is still ignoring the plethora of other, internal factors that contributed to the weakening and ultimate collapse, such as the inability to stem the infiltration by the Turks, failed economic policies and general enthusiasm to settle internal differences via civil wars. And we are not even delving to the topic how much Byzantines willingly contributed to the widening rift between themselves and the Latins.

In my opinion, the empire collapsed due to its own internal developments, and the destruction brought upon by the Fourth Crusade was at best a small contribution to the entire process. The empire would've fallen even without the crusade.

What's your opinion on the matter?

I am a native Greek speaker and I’ve had quite a few occasions of hearing the latino-anglicized version of a name in Byzantium-related content and having a brief brain fart trying to understand who it is. It doesn’t really happen when I see the names written though.

Bonus point, most names sound way cooler in their native language. Latin names lose their coolness too when they are anglicized.

If you are involved in academia, maybe start throwing in there the idea of keeping names in their original badass form.

I recently bought Count Belisarius by Robert Graves and just finished reading it. I know it is somewhat historical fiction but I am still curious if the characters are true to their original selves. If true then the following conclusions can be derived from it - 1) Belisarius was a man without fault, faithful husband, good tactician, patient, calm, believer in God and justice, and above all, loyal in front of all odds 2) Justinian was the biggest idiot of the entire saga, keeps pardoning dudes accused of various crimes, yet punishes time to time the only guy fully loyal. Is a hypocrite in the book as he denies Belisarius authority and reinforcements every possible time but when finally Belisarius brings it up, denounces him as a liar. Neglects defences and armies after peace in Italy, bulgars sack Greece unopposed. 3) EVERY man in the imperial court or an officer in the army can freely disobey belisarius and is at best given a recall. Furthermore, to avoid recall they can simply blame belisarius for plotting against justinian and they are pardoned.

Currently in Mt Athos & thought to share some pics, enjoy!

We know quite well that the empire benefited the most from the first crusade (compared to other crusades), but did it go exactly how the empire wanted it to?

Alexios I got the crusaders to vow to return all imperial territory: was this genuine or did he expect them to not honor it anyways? Additionally, did he expect them to make a break for the Holy Land and just decided to take advantage or did he believe it was going to be Anatolia-oriented? Lastly, would it have been better if the crusade solely sought to reconquer Anatolia?

Just curious to hear others opinions bc I view Constantine V as kind of a continuation of Leo’s reign but I think I’d probably rank Leo III slightly higher because he inherited more of a mess.

There are some people missing on the chart and I'm okay with it. This is mostly a succession chart rather than a family tree. Plain and simple, the top maps are from three different dynasties (I took them from Wikipedia) and the bottom two are also.

The Romans evidently put in a considerable amount of energy into the conquest of Bulgaria, but when they finally succeded, things didn't drastically changed for the worse for the average Bulgarian. Roman rule was definitely not brutal -- people didn't get violently oppressed, or taxed all the way into destitution, and so on.. So, I wonder -- what did it mean for Byzantium? What exactly were the benefits, in terms of economy, military might, security, etc.? Overall, how would you guys evaluate this particular part of ERE's history? Why was the conquest of Bulgaria seemingly so high on the list for so many Roman Emperors, in your opinion?

I find discussions about identity in the Roman Empire pretty fascinating, and I know questions about demographics are pretty difficult to answer, but this is something I’ve always been curious about.

The Roman collapse in Anatolia happened relatively quickly, and I’ve always believed that this was largely because the interior of Anatolia was never Roman in the sense that the population wasn’t Hellenic, but instead a patchwork of different peoples. This is probably wrong, and I fully admit that, but it’s my way of coming to terms with how quickly the Roman state fell to Turkish invaders with fairly little resistance. I know the common answer was that resistance was not part of the Roman strategy (which was to wait for the center to respond), but I never really found that compelling. Maybe it was just as simple as that, but it also seems like more was going on. Sure, the elites were Roman/Greek, the coastal cities were Roman/Greek, but what about the people living in the plateau?

So in the hopes of understanding more about this, and correct my probably wrong understanding about Roman Anatolia, I was hoping to ask the learned community.

At the end of Basil II’s conquests, prior to Manzikert, how much of the empire in Anatolia (and elsewhere) was “Roman”, in the ethnic sense?

Obviously, I’m sure it’s impossible to say for sure, but wondering if anyone has any data or could enlighten me about this topic.

This is an old piece from the late Walter Goffart who died this year.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27830344

There are some very interesting characters and politics in this 30 minute read. Mummolus the Roman fighting for the franks. Tiberius failed invasion of italy. I like the possible frankish usurper who was sent from Constantinople, but was ultimately betrayed.

It looks like the Byzantines were betrayed a number of times by the franks. It would make a great what if had Gundovald and Mummolus attacked the Lombards. A Roman general from france may have liberated italy.

There is also a heart breaking deduction of why Brunhild may have attacked the Lombards in the hope to have her first child returned to her. This may have continued when the child died and the grandchild was still alive in Constantinople. This grandchild also died it seems...

Today 944 Years ago Alexios I was crowned Roman Emperor Marking the start of Kommenos as Imperal dynasty

I'd assume the conditions only worsened for the lands in the former sultanate, but did it improve for who was left of Byzantine Anatolia?

I've seen a lot about the changes made in the Komnenoi system, turning what was somewhat meritocratic into a much more exclusive aristocracy. I also once saw a comment talking about how the Komnenoi system got harder and harder to deal with as the generations passed by.

So, could the Komnenoi system be sustained, or did it last as long as it could have?