The eagle's left head

[Quinkana]

While, would be worth to be noted, that Alexandros/Sicilia wasn't the first nor the ideal wedding option, it wasn't bad either, and to grant the kingdom with a rich extra peninsular non French friend/ally. And, if the current monarch happens to die without heirs.
It would be probable that would let with an absent king that would let the internal affairs/administration on the ones currently doing it. So, it wouldn't be no change either on the way in what the Kingdom and its native magnates are currently managing it...

its more that for Navarre if its in personal union with Sicily would be controversial bc the Iberian powers and France would object to it. Maybe we could see a cadet branch that converts to catholicism and stop using greek/teaching greek to their children, but getting a personal union of Navarre and Sicily/Achaea is a no-go. The Iberian powers and France probably will work something out between them, which will hurt Navarre more than not.

Perhaps, but aside that, from my perspéctive, at least, it would probably be among the possibilities either negotiated in the 'royal marriage agreement' and/or by that would have thought about when the bride was chosen. It's stated 'useless' would be only valid, for the Despotate eventual heir/heiress, but, not so much for all or some of the Despotate future ruler's eventuals 'spare' sons. Whether for getting them off providing them with a kingdom to rule or to getting lands/feuds concessions elsewhere as price to not to enforce their claim...

Finally, I think that shouldn't be underestimated that Navarra would be a good source of quality soldiers like was/its current dynasty the Counts of Évreux, nor the possibility for the Depostat to attract from there or to directly to recruit Navarrese infantrymen/mercenaries...

that is very true. I do think it's possible for a cadet branch to take the throne if things go as per otl, but otherwise it doesn't help them with Aragon and the situation they are in Italy or in the Balkans. It is a neutral marriage if they don't push things, all things considered.

Well, would seem so given that from all the possible routes, the shorter/'quicker' route through Aragon, might be best to avoid/discard it out, and supposing that also discard, too, the more large and for the time risky Biscay Bay-Atlantic-Mediterranean, so as well the French/Anjou one through Provence either...
So, I'd suppose that it would left to her and her retinue with the one through Galicia to Portuguese port of Lisbon and/or all the way to the Port Castilian Seville and from there sailing (heavily escorted by Despotat war galleys), the Mediterranean to Sicily, as perhaps the more probable/safer route options...

well the Despotate should really be focusing on the tyrrhennian/Aegean seas, but going through Gibraltar is the main way I see Blanche go to Sicily. The other way is to go from France to the Med, but Marseille is Angevin land too, so things would be interesting to see.

I'd think future generations would write about Blanche's journey in a very romanticised way, especially if Alexandros II and Blanche are in love with each other.

 

[Lascaris]

Are these preliminary cannons? Seems like Constantinople should fear a new power ITTL...

It's about time for gunpowder weapons to start showing up. Given that the Italian states were early adopters...

May I assume that by maneuvering Grecian units from Hellas to Sicily, Theodore and Michael are confident their Hellenic holdings are safe and that the sieges in Aetolia-akarnia were a success by 1346, thus allowing for Aetolia to join the Despotate's holdings? Or is that spoilers?

Or at least believe there is no dager this campaign season. And the Lascarid invasion was a success they were bringing overwhelming force in an area with an indifferent/friendly population.

@Lascaris thank you for this extra long update.
Now that the Latin threat in the Aegean has been dealt with , the Despotate can move part of its fleet back to Sicily to crush the Angevin fleet there. Of course I imagine there will be some battles in the Aegean to recover the lost islands from the Turks.
In Thessaloniki, the commune will be forced to turn to the Lascarids for aid, when Stefan Dusan comes after them.
What does the Despotate win from the bethrothal agreement with Navarre? Besides this, wouldn't Joan II, queen of Navarre, be reluctant to give her daughter to a schismatic, excommunicated by the Pope?

This is right after Crecy and Joan signing a treaty of her own with Edward III, against the express wishes of the French crown... and the pope is ehm "closely connected to the French crown". So an experienced monarch like Joan taking Clement's claims of which monarch is and is not a good Christian, with a grain of salt doesn't seem exactly unlikely. Post that political gain would be certainly a factor in calculations but by that token what exactly was Edward of Savoy gaining from marrying his sister with Andronikos III for example at the very time Andronikos was in rebellion against his grandfather with an uncertain future and the empire had zero influence in Italy? Same for Andronikos of course.

It's true that immediate political gains are peripheral for both sides, in the case of Joan the Sicilians are a naval power to be reckoned with in the Western Mediterranean, which does influence both its Iberian neighbors and can serve as a balance for the Angevins which in terms of internal French politics should be of interest, Charles III and the Tarentine branch are joined to Philip VI at the hip by marriage, which at a time Joan is getting more independent from Philip should be I expect of interest. And it is not as if Blanche's other matches aside of Castille offered direct political gain to Joan. What direct gain you got from marriage with Andrew of Viennois... when his dad had sold off all his lands? Or from the count of Flanders? The despot/duke of Sicily may not be as good a match as the failed Castilian one but still a notch up from some count.

On the Lascarid side, a link with Navarre gives them a foot into Iberian politics and Sicily IS among all else a western Mediterranean power you ignore the Iberian kingdoms and their fleets at your peril, as well as at least some influence within French court politics to balance the Angevin links there. Hopefully even some influence on Clement to balance out that of Charles. Besides this lets remember the circumstances of the marriage of Theodore and Adrienne. Is it so odd to think their criteria for a match for their only probably feted son are not coldly political? What is known in Syracuse about Blanche? That she is clever of good character and very beautiful. What are the alternatives in 1346? Lets remove married ones and ones under 12 because well Adrienne for the latter.

1. Eleanor of Portugal 18 years old
2. Blanche of Navarre 15 years old
3. Isabella of England 16 years old
4. Margaret (21) or Elizabeth (17 years old) of Bavaria.
5. Teodora of Serbia 16 years old
6. Constance (22) or Eleanor (21), or Beatrice (20) or Euphemia (18) of Sicily.

The Sicilian ones are out for political reasons. Theodora offers political gains if you forget Adrienne and what does it gain Stefan? It's not as if Lascarid fleets are going to blockade Constantinople and Thessaloniki for him. If anything they are acting as a rival power grabbing the same lands he wants to grab. Isabella is betrothed to Louis of Flanders. Soo...

I don’t think it was smart of the Sicilian Greeks to commit 5,000 soldiers to Rhodes when they could have reinforced their army in Sicily Or mainland Greece itself. They’d outnumber the Neapolitans if they had that 5k force. Rhodes is hardly profitable or important enough to worth committing such a sizeable force when there’s still major fighting on the mainland.

If Theodore was bringing 22,000 against 13,000 why Charles would stand and fight and not pull back in his own and let Theodore bang his head on enemy castles instead? And Rhodes is economically important given her role in the Egyptian trade but that's something else.

Some millions years old fossil I'd say.

Back as a kid by father and uncles had killed a snake while we were going to the beach. When returning some hours later we found someone beating up the dead snake to kill it. Well spearing a dinosaur skull takes it a bit beyond.

At long last... Let's hope their proginy will be somewhat larger than the previous generations.

Is that really something to hope for? In 14th century royal politics?

Its not about profit . Those 5000 men were used to close a front in a multi front war , a move that will allow long term freedom to focus west for the Lascarids . They were already outnumbering the Neapolitans after all after the troops from Greece arrived ...

And if the Hospitallers can't quite serve as base for another attack if they don't exist..

Fortunately, Gryphon was able to capture Rhodes and end the siege before the Black Death arrives.

I could not get the exact moment of its arrival in Constantinople but I guess in spring-summer of 1347, so I guess we'll read about it in next week's update.

Messina was late 1347 IMS from which point it rapidly spread to the rest of Italy. Given the trade and political links...

It's very much about profit. The Aegean is just a sideshow. The Hospitallers from Rhodes posed a much more limited threat to the Lascarids. The real knockout blow is always gonna be in Italy. Lose in Italy and you lose no matter how big you win in the Aegean. The Lascarids did something very similar early on when they let the Angevins roam free in the Aegean and concentrated all of their ships in Italy. In terms of army soldiers in Italy, they certainly did not outnumber the Neapolitans by a lot. Theodore had 17k to 13k that's Charles after the arrival of the reinforcements from Greece. If the 5k force had been sent to Italy instead, the situation would in Italy would have swung decisively over to the Lascarids, with Theodore's army almost being double that of Charles'.

Leaving aside why the Lascarids should be following a faultless strategy, they should not I wouldn't call the Aegean a sideshow. By 1344 the Greek holdings of House Vatatzes are about as populous as their Italian lands. Half the fleet and the army and about 45% the tax revenue are coming from there. Chios alone counts for nearly 10% of the entire Lascari tax revenue. Now what happens if Theodore orders the fleet and army west instead in 1346 and Zaccaria continues his operations? A basic tenet of the social contract keeping the Lascarid realm in one place is that the despot is actively protecting his citizens, from raids, invasion... and rapacious magnates, something not on offer in the Aegean by any other Christian ruler. If Theodore is deliberately stripping troops and ships endangering his Greek lands how fast you start seeing revolts and attempts of local magnates to switch sides?

The threat was just part of the Angevin fleet with limited ground forces. It was never as lethal a threat as Charles. If they had 5k extra troops at the Battle of Mela River, they could have potentially knocked out Charles then and there instead of just winning a tactical victory. Had the knocked Charles out, the threat to the Aegean would have automatically also ended.

One notes Charles took 40% casualies. How much worse we want ut, Theodore massacring his entire army?

The sea lanes are what make and can unmake the Despotate's power. Prior to the battle of Rhodes in April 1346 here, the critical issue was that as long as Rhodes was a threat to Greece, the Lascarids could not quite leverage their full resources, that is, the resources of Hellas, against Charles' naval threat.

If you kept equal numbers to Zaccaria's fleet you'd sent only 20 ships west which means the two enemy fleets in Italian waters are evenly matched. Remove many more ships and Zaccaria is having the upper hand in the Aegean taking island after island or worse threatening Chios again

I am more curious on whats going to happen to the knights hospitallars. They lost rhodes, malta is a no go. They are poor, so whats going to happen to them?

First stop is likely Cyprus and supporting Lesser Armenia which is invaded by the Msmelukes.

Now., this would imply from now on through the couple sons/daughter that Vastastez will be part/relatives from the French high aristocracy and that if ITTL Blanche brother's fate wouldn't be butterflied... Then, down the line, both Alexandros and/or his heir, would be the ones with the stronger claim/next in line to inherit Navarre...

And inheriting Navarre is good or bad? Hmm...

Well, I'd guess that depending on the surrender terms, that they either may be ransomed or paroled and let them go their way... And, if so, I'd suppose that'd they would be in need to find both a new home/shelter and a patron/employer that would help to recover/redeem their recent defeat through, perhaps fighting against the infidels...

They are leaving under terms. Their lesser holdings in the Dodecanese also remain unconquered although with Rhodes gone the other islands aren't overtly likely to hold out for long...

Probably short term, the Knights will move back to their holdings on Cyprus, but will be on the look out for a new home, and it would be one easy way to get on the good side of the Pope and the West for a ruler in distress, who needs veteran troops and is in a bad position, plus is facing a lot of either infidels or schismatics. . .
Plus the thought of Anna of savoy hiring/employing the Knights Hospitaller to fend off Kantakouzenos and his Turks is just plain funny to me. Knights take Gallipoli from the Turks and make it or maybe Byzantine Lesbos their new home.

Hmm. That's not a bad option although as long as they remain at war with the Lascarids this is just as likely to bring a Lascarid attack on Lesbos.

If there is anything to add to the ongoing discussion, I personally believe that the Hospitallers should move somewhere outside the Mediterranean. Or at least beyond the reach and influence of the Lascarids. Maybe Crimea? Genoa will have a harder time now, and Kaffa, devastated by the Black Death, would be a good start for taking over the rest of the peninsula.

Teutonic order south? Genoa isn't likely to get interested...

Man, now would be a really bad time for oh I don't know, the Serbs maybe? to invade Laskarid lands from the north

I would think Dusan would want Constantinople over Laskarid Greece.

The Serbs are bound to invade Epirus and Thessaly over the next couple years. Obvious question... do they stop there?

even with the Commune rising up, we have no idea who they are under the control of. With Anna of Savoy having a weak showing as time goes on I wonder when they'd switch to calling Theodore the Autokrator of the Roman Empire...

For now they are practically an independent city state, a big one with a population of maybe 100,000 or more.

Also considering their proximity to the Lascarids I wonder if the Lascarids would just fight the Serbians over the Balkans, especially right after they finish dealing with Charles (it prob depends when Louis gets to Naples), which would allow them to stop looking at the peninsula and focus on Dusan.

Fighting the Serbs means you can forget sending armies from Greece to Italy, if anything you;d need to move armies the other way round if things went serious.

Especially if the Black Death was pushed back a few years due to different trading patterns.

It was already ravaging what is now Ukraine. Given the extend of trade at this time...

Louis realising that the Lascarids are doing good are a boon and a curse. On one hand it is good that he recognises the Lascarids with having common cause. On the other it means that he prob won't march until he is done with Zara...

For now he has not start preparing for war the Naples. For now.

Alexandros creating a few cadet branches via spare heirs he makes with Blanche will be good for the longevity of the Lascarid dynasty. I'd imagine we get Vatatzes and Palailogos cadet branches from their progeny, which would be pretty interesting in general.

You say cadet branches. Someone oh Byzantine minded might hear rival rulers and breakup of the realm.

Charles’ army is very much a lethal threat. It has besieged and raided the countryside of the Despotate’s most important cities like Messina previously.

Zaccharias’ fleet was constrained to the Aegean, not the Ionian. The actual Angevin Italian fleet that could constrain transportation between Greece and Italy was badly mauled in previous battles. Like I have been saying before the amount of damage that Zaccharias’ fleet could do was negligible compared to what Charles’ army could do to the Despotate’s lands in Sicily. Zaccharias could take a few isolated islands in the Aegean at most. They certainly could not hold the islands if the Angevins are defeated in Italy.

It was directly threatening the main Lascarid ports in Greece, where an expedition west would be likely concentrating, namely Piraeus and Corinth. Post that given Corfu nothing would be stopping him from redeploying if it looked the Greeks are gone from the Aegean.

 

[Avrorrange]

And yet by the time of the battle of Rhodes a few months later, Lascarid spies show Charles' fleet at Naples around 60 ships. Hardly a decisive battle by this token.

True, but the quality of the crew of these ships have probably deteriorated. You simply cannot mass produce sailors as you would ground forces.

A land battle was rarely decisive at that time. Ask the French after Crécy, Poitiers and Azincourt..

Crecy yes, but Poitiers and Azincourt were very decisive. It gained the Plantegenets huge sections of France. That they lost the land later on due to other failures should not distract that fact. Unless the Lascarids are planning to pursue massive territory gains for example, a decisive victory victory is probably sufficient to gain them a peace with minor territorial concessions, compensations and recognition of Charles over the Lascarids’ existing claims and privileges.

He did wait I'd say.
The battle of Melas river (August 1346) did not happen until after Zaccaria's fleet had been crushed (April 1346) in front of Rhodes and the Hospitalers were under siege, freeing up manpower of Hellas (4,000 soldiers, that's a third of the number fielded by Michael at Falani against Aydinids in September 1344) a for transfer to Sicily (June 1346).

They can transfer these troops without Zaccarias’ fleet being crushed. They were not exactly posting field army troops to deter an attack by Zaccharias’ fleet. While you can argue that the destroying Zacchias’ fleet had it’s merits, I am not particularly sure that spending 6 extra months besieging Rhodes with such a large force after the fleet is gone was particularly justified. With the destruction of Zaccarias’ fleet, taking Rhodes is not necessarily a necessity. If they really wanted the island, part of the force can continue besieging the place whilst the bulk of the force is transferred back to Italy. The Hospitallers did not have a large garrison while Sicilian forces are bolstered by rebelling local Greek peasants. I don’t think tying up 5k on Rhodes after Zaccharias Was neutralised was very justified.

It's about time for gunpowder weapons to start showing up. Given that the Italian states were early adopters...

Or at least believe there is no dager this campaign season. And the Lascarid invasion was a success they were bringing overwhelming force in an area with an indifferent/friendly population.


This is right after Crecy and Joan signing a treaty of her own with Edward III, against the express wishes of the French crown... and the pope is ehm "closely connected to the French crown". So an experienced monarch like Joan taking Clement's claims of which monarch is and is not a good Christian, with a grain of salt doesn't seem exactly unlikely. Post that political gain would be certainly a factor in calculations but by that token what exactly was Edward of Savoy gaining from marrying his sister with Andronikos III for example at the very time Andronikos was in rebellion against his grandfather with an uncertain future and the empire had zero influence in Italy? Same for Andronikos of course.

It's true that immediate political gains are peripheral for both sides, in the case of Joan the Sicilians are a naval power to be reckoned with in the Western Mediterranean, which does influence both its Iberian neighbors and can serve as a balance for the Angevins which in terms of internal French politics should be of interest, Charles III and the Tarentine branch are joined to Philip VI at the hip by marriage, which at a time Joan is getting more independent from Philip should be I expect of interest. And it is not as if Blanche's other matches aside of Castille offered direct political gain to Joan. What direct gain you got from marriage with Andrew of Viennois... when his dad had sold off all his lands? Or from the count of Flanders? The despot/duke of Sicily may not be as good a match as the failed Castilian one but still a notch up from some count.

On the Lascarid side, a link with Navarre gives them a foot into Iberian politics and Sicily IS among all else a western Mediterranean power you ignore the Iberian kingdoms and their fleets at your peril, as well as at least some influence within French court politics to balance the Angevin links there. Hopefully even some influence on Clement to balance out that of Charles. Besides this lets remember the circumstances of the marriage of Theodore and Adrienne. Is it so odd to think their criteria for a match for their only probably feted son are not coldly political? What is known in Syracuse about Blanche? That she is clever of good character and very beautiful. What are the alternatives in 1346? Lets remove married ones and ones under 12 because well Adrienne for the latter.

1. Eleanor of Portugal 18 years old
2. Blanche of Navarre 15 years old
3. Isabella of England 16 years old
4. Margaret (21) or Elizabeth (17 years old) of Bavaria.
5. Teodora of Serbia 16 years old
6. Constance (22) or Eleanor (21), or Beatrice (20) or Euphemia (18) of Sicily.

How much influence does Navarre really have in Iberia politics?

The Sicilian ones are out for political reasons. Theodora offers political gains if you forget Adrienne and what does it gain Stefan? It's not as if Lascarid fleets are going to blockade Constantinople and Thessaloniki for him. If anything they are acting as a rival power grabbing the same lands he wants to grab. Isabella is betrothed to Louis of Flanders. Soo...


If Theodore was bringing 22,000 against 13,000 why Charles would stand and fight and not pull back in his own and let Theodore bang his head on enemy castles instead? And Rhodes is economically important given her role in the Egyptian trade but that's something else.

Because with 22k, the Lascarids can also force Charles to engage by looting and burning his lands should he choose not to engage.There are many cases where a smaller force is forced to engage because people are looting and burning their lands. Sometimes they even win despite more limited numbers. They can perhaps even disguise the force to make it appear that they had equal forces to lure Charles into an engagement. If Charles’ false intelligence that they had roughly equal forces during the battle of Melas River was any indication, it certainly suggests that this could have potentially happened. Military history is full of generals blundering into attacking a larger force due to faulty intelligence or because they believe they could win despite having far more limited forces. This is especially true in pre-modern combat where intelligence is much more faulty. They can perhaps even send the extra forces to pull a Heraclius on Charles by attacking other targets such as directly attacking Naples,especially since the Neapolitan fleet has now been badly mauled.

That said, Rhodes could be taken anytime after Charles had been taken out. I am not saying it was wrong to attack Rhodes, only that Charles should have been the greater priority.

Back as a kid by father and uncles had killed a snake while we were going to the beach. When returning some hours later we found someone beating up the dead snake to kill it. Well spearing a dinosaur skull takes it a bit beyond.

Is that really something to hope for? In 14th century royal politics?

And if the Hospitallers can't quite serve as base for another attack if they don't exist..

Messina was late 1347 IMS from which point it rapidly spread to the rest of Italy. Given the trade and political links...


Leaving aside why the Lascarids should be following a faultless strategy, they should not I wouldn't call the Aegean a sideshow. By 1344 the Greek holdings of House Vatatzes are about as populous as their Italian lands. Half the fleet and the army and about 45% the tax revenue are coming from there. Chios alone counts for nearly 10% of the entire Lascari tax revenue. Now what happens if Theodore orders the fleet and army west instead in 1346 and Zaccaria continues his operations? A basic tenet of the social contract keeping the Lascarid realm in one place is that the despot is actively protecting his citizens, from raids, invasion... and rapacious magnates, something not on offer in the Aegean by any other Christian ruler. If Theodore is deliberately stripping troops and ships endangering his Greek lands how fast you start seeing revolts and attempts of local magnates to switch sides?

I certainly wouldn’t call it a faultless strategy. You certainly think that is a faultless strategy because you are the one writing the story and thought it would work lol. 45% of their revenues may come from Greece, but without an actual ground force to back him up, the ability of Zaccarias to actually endanger most of that Greek revenue is far limited, especially since his movements are also checked by the Lascarid fleet.I am not saying the Lascarids should have left Zaccarias unchecked. I am only saying that they shouldn’t have committed so much ground force to Rhodes, particularly since Rhodes is manned by around 400 hospitallers only.

I would argue that the Angevins spreading their forces by sending the fleet to the Aegean was a more faulty strategy.It opened them up to be defeated in detail as they did during then Naval Battle of Messina.The better strategy in my opinion would have been to intensify coordinated naval and ground assaults on Italy to force Zaccharias to be recalled and have them defeated in detail on route.If the Lascarids actually doubled down on Italy, Zaccharias would have not choice but to be recalled.

One notes Charles took 40% casualies. How much worse we want ut, Theodore massacring his entire army?

It could perhaps happen as Theodore’s father defeated the Angevins years ago.The way you described it, Theodore was licking his wounds after the battle as well.

If you kept equal numbers to Zaccaria's fleet you'd sent only 20 ships west which means the two enemy fleets in Italian waters are evenly matched. Remove many more ships and Zaccaria is having the upper hand in the Aegean taking island after island or worse threatening Chios again

The Aegean islands were also strongly fortified, Chios in particular according to you.They are not particularly vulnerable especially with the Lascarid fleet being there to put a check on Zaccarias’ movements.

 

[X Oristos]

The Aegean islands were also strongly fortified, Chios in particular according to you.They are not particularly vulnerable especially with the Lascarid fleet being there to put a check on Zaccarias’ movements.

Chios was a major source of income and also provided the strategic commodity of mastic, one of the few that the Mameluks desired. The rest being Black Sea slaves and silver. It makes sense to spend a lot of money to fortify it and maintain a sizeable garrison. The rest though? They would be resource sinkholes if there was a significant effort to fortify them. The Angevins could capture the Cyclades and Aegina blockading Piraeus.

but without an actual ground force to back him up, the ability of Zaccarias to actually endanger most of that Greek revenue is far limited, especially since his movements are also checked by the Lascarid fleet.

The Angevins could use Turkish mercenaries - as they did and they could find common ground with Dusan and receive thousands of men. After all, the Lascarid fleet is what is keeping the Commune of Thessaloniki fed and protected. At this point Thessaloniki is the most important Lascarid client, a base to operate at Dusan's rear and a major market for the Despotate's merchants.

That said, Rhodes could be taken anytime after Charles had been taken out.

Having Rhodes makes Theodore an even more important ally for Genoa and brings the Ligurian commune closer to Syracuse. Due to the prevailing winds and currents, in the age of oar and sail, most of the traffic between the Black Sea and Egypt passes by the Dodecanese. At this point, without the income of Chios and Phocaea, the Genoese depend even more on the Black Sea trade, where they are facing cutthroat competition from the Venetians. Instantly Theodore has become a more important figure in genoese politics. And the venetian ones too...

 

[Avrorrange]

Chios was a major source of income and also provided the strategic commodity of mastic, one of the few that the Mameluks desired. The rest being Black Sea slaves and silver. It makes sense to spend a lot of money to fortify it and maintain a sizeable garrison. The rest though? They would be resource sinkholes if there was a significant effort to fortify them. The Angevins could capture the Cyclades and Aegina blockading Piraeus.

More reason to prioritise on other areas then. Countries cannot afford to defend everywhere. As much as it sounds unjust, in war, leaders always have to determine which areas they have to prioritise more on, and which areas are expendable. Few leaders would prioritise sink holes over richer areas.

The Angevins could use Turkish mercenaries - as they did and they could find common ground with Dusan and receive thousands of men. After all, the Lascarid fleet is what is keeping the Commune of Thessaloniki fed and protected. At this point Thessaloniki is the most important Lascarid client, a base to operate at Dusan's rear and a major market for the Despotate's merchants.

No it’s not. Thessaloniki is not a Lascarid client, at least not yet. If Dusan wants to screw with the Sicilians, they would probably march down Thessaly to loot, burn and conquer Sicilian land for themselves instead of helping the Latins conquer lands instead. As for Turkish mercenaries, a lot of Turks are currently preoccupied either fighting each other or are participating in the Byzantine civil war.

Having Rhodes makes Theodore an even more important ally for Genoa and brings the Ligurian commune closer to Syracuse. Due to the prevailing winds and currents, in the age of oar and sail, most of the traffic between the Black Sea and Egypt passes by the Dodecanese. At this point, without the income of Chios and Phocaea, the Genoese depend even more on the Black Sea trade, where they are facing cutthroat competition from the Venetians. Instantly Theodore has become a more important figure in genoese politics. And the venetian ones too...

It could be taken after Charles is taken cared of. I am not saying don’t go for it, only that it could be dealt with after the war against Charles is over. Once the Angevins are defeated, the Hospitallers themselves stand no chance against the Lascarids.

 

[galileo-034]

I am not saying don’t go for it, only that it could be dealt with after the war against Charles is over. Once the Angevins are defeated, the Hospitallers themselves stand no chance against the Lascarids.

Basic principle of war, in a long war, target the weaker links in your enemies' side first.

Poitiers and Azincourt were decisive, so what's your definition of decisive?
Unlike Bouvines in 1214, neither of these battles put an end to the war, merely caused a pause, and within 15 to 20 years, the gains were reversed.
Charles and Neapolitans defeated in battle, even at one like Mela river, are not definitely out of the war, the Hospitallers without Rhodes are.

 

[goumaister]

I believe this is just a matter of priorities right? I mean it is already said that with 22k troops Charles would not stand and fight. Now the counter to that , raiding the countryside to force a battle, hasn't helped the Angevins that much till now right? Why would then Charles push for a fight against odds almost 2:1? Faulty intelligence right? Well it is far easier to hide 5k troops than 10k. I would argue twice as hard. So what would 22k troops do in Sicily if Charles got away? Chase him down? Take back Millazzo and Cefalu while being harassed? Isn't that a bigger sinking of troops for not quite the same decisive result as in Rhodes? That is the debate here.

In my opinion the extra troops in Sicily just means no Mela river battle. As plain as that. Also taking Rhodes now is better than later just because later those troops could be needed in Greece against the Serbs. Also if someone wants those troops in Sicily either way why not take them now? What real difference does it make to move them after taking Rhodes?

 

[Avrorrange]

I believe this is just a matter of priorities right? I mean it is already said that with 22k troops Charles would not stand and fight. Now the counter to that , raiding the countryside to force a battle, hasn't helped the Angevins that much till now right?

Even if he isn’t gonna fight, it would put significant pressure on Charles to open up negotiations.Much of Charles’ army consist of feudal levies etc. His command over them is much more fleeting than say the Lascarids over their own forces. A lot of the Sicilian nobility aren’t exactly loyal to Charles. They submitted to his family less two decades. If he doesn’t fight, a sizeable part of his force would just melt away to defend their own castles or even open up negotiations with the Lascarids to defect. Social contract. So he is forced to open negotiations or fight.

Why would then Charles push for a fight against odds almost 2:1? Faulty intelligence right? Well it is far easier to hide 5k troops than 10k. I would argue twice as hard. So what would 22k troops do in Sicily if Charles got away? Chase him down?

History is full of people making military blunders. Outnumbered didn’t stop Charles the Bold from fighting the Swiss and Lorrainers despite them outnumbering him 2-3 times.Whether you can actually obfuscate your force is also an art. There are plenty of resourceful commanders who were able to pull that off.

Take back Millazzo and Cefalu while being harassed? Isn't that a bigger sinking of troops for not quite the same decisive result as in Rhodes? That is the debate here.

If you think that the extra 5k won’t force Charles to fight , then strike directly at Naples or other mainland targets. It would force Charles to pull out of other armies or force him to open up negotiations.

In my opinion the extra troops in Sicily just means no Mela river battle. As plain as that. Also taking Rhodes now is better than later just because later those troops could be needed in Greece against the Serbs. Also if someone wants those troops in Sicily either way why not take them now? What real difference does it make to move them after taking Rhodes?

Hindsight is 20/20. The Lascarids may not necessarily know that the Serbs are staying in Macedonia for good.The other thing is that the Serbs are strong. The Lascarids may not want to immediately go after a powerful target like the Serbs immediately, so a much weaker target in the form of Rhodes is probably preferable.

 

[Quinkana]

Messina was late 1347 IMS from which point it rapidly spread to the rest of Italy. Given the trade and political links...

Ah that makes sense. The only good thing about Sicily getting the Black Death is that they'd be the first to recover...

Dusan basically conquered all his lands during the Black Death huh,

One notes Charles took 40% casualies. How much worse we want ut, Theodore massacring his entire army?

Yes?

Pike and shot (and usage of light cavalry) would be devastating against armies used to fighting levies that would break if the cavalry rode in. I could very easily see Charles just not ordering a retreat, thinking that the massed pikemen would break if he charged them one more time, and being crushed between the hammer of the light cavalry and the anvil of the massed pike.

And inheriting Navarre is good or bad? Hmm...

If it makes the Iberian powers focus against Navarre it's bad. It depends on how Navarre navigates the situation.

The Serbs are bound to invade Epirus and Thessaly over the next couple years. Obvious question... do they stop there?

Will they? I think Dusan would be confident enough to continue conquering, and with the Lascarids still dealing with the Angevins I don't see Stefan Dusan not thinking that he could push the Lascarids out of the Balkans, since Lascarid armies would be really stressed rn, with both the Sicilian and Greek holdings under threat.

the only advantage the Lascarids would have is a navy that could supply places where they shouldn't be able to, but that is a small consolation when you have armies that are much larger and yours hurtling towards you. I think the Lascarids would need some lucky breaks (much like how the Ottomans consistently fielded smaller armies that crushed numerically bigger armies in the early days) just to get out of the Serbian pickle (and why I personally think a Hungarian match is better-suited).

For now they are practically an independent city state, a big one with a population of maybe 100,000 or more.

ahh makes sense. I do think eventually the zealots would need help, and the Lascarids would already be fighting the serbs by then. Its not like the Lascarids would have a choice in whether Dusan attacks them or not...

You say cadet branches. Someone oh Byzantine minded might hear rival rulers and breakup of the realm.

well, they're also descendants of the stupor Mundi, so maybe things will be different...?

History is full of people making military blunders. Outnumbered didn’t stop Charles the Bold from fighting the Swiss and Lorrainers despite them outnumbering him 2-3 times.Whether you can actually obfuscate your force is also an art. There are plenty of resourceful commanders who were able to pull that off.

tbf this is the one thing I feel is missing from this tl. Everyone is too 'competent' here. I think it is very likely that we'd see some bad decisions being thrown about, and bigger armies being ground to dust due to bad decisions is quite common in history, for example.

Hindsight is 20/20. The Lascarids may not necessarily know that the Serbs are staying in Macedonia for good.

Frankly the Lascarid holdings are always split between their Greek and Sicilian holdings, not defending either one would incur serious consequences. As Dusan comes to fight the Lascarids in Thessaly I think the armies that are left in Greece would be a lot more useful there...

and its not like both armies could hold the fort with their respective numbers, especially when Charles are getting weaker (and I hope Gryphon and co could pull off a stunning victory against Dusan, it would be needed to chase them off Lascarid holdings anyways, and show that they can punch well above their weight).

 

[goumaister]

Even if he isn’t gonna fight, it would put significant pressure on Charles to open up negotiations.Much of Charles’ army consist of feudal levies etc. His command over them is much more fleeting than say the Lascarids over their own forces. A lot of the Sicilian nobility aren’t exactly loyal to Charles. They submitted to his family less two decades. If he doesn’t fight, a sizeable part of his force would just melt away to defend their own castles or even open up negotiations with the Lascarids to defect. Social contract. So he is forced to open negotiations or fight.

Raiding fortified Sicily would accomplish nothing. Most of the Sicilian lords were hating the Laskarids long befor the Angevins did. Plus the excommunication would help in keeping the subject together. No I believe this assumption is quite false. We have seen defending armies use scorched earth so many times in history for this to work. Especially cause none of the fortified castles isn't falling without at least a week of siege which could change the dynamics.

History is full of people making military blunders. Outnumbered didn’t stop Charles the Bold from fighting the Swiss and Lorrainers despite them outnumbering him 2-3 times.Whether you can actually obfuscate your force is also an art. There are plenty of resourceful commanders who were able to pull that off.

True enough. It is also filled with commanders retreating from a bigger army.

If you think that the extra 5k won’t force Charles to fight , then strike directly at Naples or other mainland targets. It would force Charles to pull out of other armies or force him to open up negotiations.

Charles has another 10k at least in Calabria. The most this addition will make is him consolidating his army either in Sicily or Calabria. Also he is quite likely to find more troops to fight an excommunicated schismatic well like he found the Grimaldi galleys.

Hindsight is 20/20. The Lascarids may not necessarily know that the Serbs are staying in Macedonia for good.The other thing is that the Serbs are strong. The Lascarids may not want to immediately go after a powerful target like the Serbs immediately, so a much weaker target in the form of Rhodes is probably preferable.

I used the word could in the sentence you answered. More likely having a defensive army in Thessaly with an active Roman civil war next door is advisable for sure. I was not trying to imply that those troops would fight the Serbs. Although after the declaration of Dusan that could be reconsidered.

I will not say you are on the wrong here. Your arguments have logic. The counterarguments as well. This is like when you are on a crossroad like this. You decide on a path. Now if that path is correct you will only now after. I still don't get why technically now that Rhodes has fallen and Charles is defeated those extra troops from Rhodes won't come to Calabria to take on Louis and push him even further or in Sicily to keep Charles on the run and behind his castles. The order of movements change but when you use first the conquest of Rhodes you close a front, when not then the Aegean trade is stopped and the Greek ports are under threat.

 

[Quinkana]

I will not say you are on the wrong here. Your arguments have logic. The counterarguments as well. This is like when you are on a crossroad like this. You decide on a path. Now if that path is correct you will only now after. I still don't get why technically now that Rhodes has fallen and Charles is defeated those extra troops from Rhodes won't come to Calabria to take on Louis and push him even further or in Sicily to keep Charles on the run and behind his castles. The order of movements change but when you use first the conquest of Rhodes you close a front, when not then the Aegean trade is stopped and the Greek ports are under threat.

Frankly I don't think the Lascarids would pull too many troops from their Greek holdings bc they haven't finished taking over Angevin Greece anyways, and Dusan is in the vicinity of the Lascarid holdings too. Frankly, splitting the armies is a safer bet, and just taking the time to build the army that would crush Charles is the more prudent choice I'd think.

 

[galileo-034]

that path is correct you will only now after. I still don't get why technically now that Rhodes has fallen and Charles is defeated those extra troops from Rhodes won't come to Calabria to take on Louis and push him even further or in Sicily to keep Charles on the run and behind his castles. The order of movements change but when you use first the conquest of Rhodes you close a front, when not then the Aegean trade is stopped and the Greek ports are under threat.

Rhodes has fallen but a few minor holdouts remain to be picked up and those islands, Samos notably, that are occupied by Turks need to be liberated.
With how things are turning out north in the Empire, keeping these forces from Rhodes around for mopping up in the Aegean could be practical. Once that is done, a season of campaign I guess, then they could be deployed to Italy if the situation in Thessaly is good enough, and if things deteriorate before that, then it would be faster to repatriate these forces to defend Thessaly from Aegean waters than from across the Ionian sea.

 

[moopli]

I certainly wouldn’t call it a faultless strategy. You certainly think that is a faultless strategy because you are the one writing the story and thought it would work lol

I generally think your argument has merit, but I wanted to quibble on this point. From what I understood, lascaris was dismissing the idea that the Vatatzes must follow a faultless strategy. So, them being the protagonists doesn't make them immune from making mistakes.

With that out of the way, I see the merit in both arguments here, but what's most important to me is that their chosen strategy feels in-character, with their history of juggling multiple fronts and of course, Philanthropenos' advice.

 

[goumaister]

Frankly I don't think the Lascarids would pull too many troops from their Greek holdings bc they haven't finished taking over Angevin Greece anyways, and Dusan is in the vicinity of the Lascarid holdings too. Frankly, splitting the armies is a safer bet, and just taking the time to build the army that would crush Charles is the more prudent choice I'd think.

Rhodes has fallen but a few minor holdouts remain to be picked up and those islands, Samos notably, that are occupied by Turks need to be liberated.
With how things are turning out north in the Empire, keeping these forces from Rhodes around for mopping up in the Aegean could be practical. Once that is done, a season of campaign I guess, then they could be deployed to Italy if the situation in Thessaly is good enough, and if things deteriorate before that, then it would be faster to repatriate these forces to defend Thessaly from Aegean waters than from across the Ionian sea.

I agree with both of you, I was just point out that the option to do what Avrorrange said , sending the troops to Sicily, is still available.

 

[Quinkana]

I generally think your argument has merit, but I wanted to quibble on this point. From what I understood, lascaris was dismissing the idea that the Vatatzes must follow a faultless strategy. So, them being the protagonists doesn't make them immune from making mistakes.

With that out of the way, I see the merit in both arguments here, but what's most important to me is that their chosen strategy feels in-character, with their history of juggling multiple fronts and of course, Philanthropenos' advice.

I agree with both of you, I was just point out that the option to do what Avrorrange said , sending the troops to Sicily, is still available.

tbf fact is the Lascarids have to keep their greek holdings secure, and with the aegean under attack keeping the angevins from sending armies on the Lascarid's greek holdings are also very important. Plus the fact that Dusan and Umur is in the region means that the lascars would be scared that moving too many armies away means that the enemy will smell weakness and attack anyways.

but its not like all the troops in Greece have to stay in Greece, and we already know some are moved over to Sicily, especially to deal a decisive blow to Charles in the last battle.

 

[Avrorrange]

Raiding fortified Sicily would accomplish nothing. Most of the Sicilian lords were hating the Laskarids long befor the Angevins did. Plus the excommunication would help in keeping the subject together. No I believe this assumption is quite false. We have seen defending armies use scorched earth so many times in history for this to work. Especially cause none of the fortified castles isn't falling without at least a week of siege which could change the dynamics.

The intensity of raids was different. Previously, the Lascarids haven’t mobilized tens of thousands of troops to conduct raids. It was likely raids that were conducted by several hundred people at most. It was likely restricted to the bordering lords who were screwing with the Lascarids. The Lascarids have a lot of light cavalry, they can raid even into western Sicily and get out before they could be intercepted.Scorched earth policy is generally very controversial and they are limited to bordering regions for very good reasons.It’s economically ruinous. The Sicilian lords would have to bear the brunt of economic costs.

Regarding the issue of the excommunication, Frederick etc were excommunicated during the Sicilian Vespers as well, the Sicilian barons still followed them. Yeah, the Sicilian lords hate the Laskarids, but that doesn’t mean they like Charles either.

Also, with the Sicilians mobilised on the field, a lot of castles might not necessarily be fully manned.

True enough. It is also filled with commanders retreating from a bigger army.

Charles has another 10k at least in Calabria. The most this addition will make is him consolidating his army either in Sicily or Calabria. Also he is quite likely to find more troops to fight an excommunicated schismatic well like he found the Grimaldi galleys.

He found the Grimaldi galleys completely by luck. His actual allies are all preoccupied. Considering how expensive Robert‘s wars were(He tried to conquer large parts of Northern Italy and got smacked) and how big this current war has gotten, I am not sure that Charles really has a lot of money to spare to hire more people.He probably lasted only so long because the pope was covering part of his expenses. If anything, his old ‘friend’ Louis the Great might turn up in Italy with his army, except not to support him.

Considering Charles’ army in Calabria has been badly battered, and it’s morale/discipline plummeting to the point where they assassinated their own commander, the 5k troops turning up to either support the Calabrian army or even land in more vital areas such as Naples would absolutely be devastating.

 

[Quinkana]

Regarding the issue of the excommunication, Frederick etc were excommunicated during the Sicilian Vespers as well, the Sicilian barons still followed them. Yeah, the Sicilian lords hate the Laskarids, but that doesn’t mean they like Charles either.

tbf its more about what the lords think. I think its very possible that the barons think that Charles iii is the better option bc they know they'll prob be killed like the lords of Achaea if the lascarids get their hands on them, and as a result would be fighting much harder than what you'd expect.

I would expect the magnates in the mainland to give up earlier than the guys in Palermo and throwing them under the bus.

Considering Charles’ army in Calabria has been badly battered, and it’s morale/discipline plummeting to the point where they assassinated their own commander, the 5k troops turning up to either support the Calabrian army or even land in more vital areas such as Naples would absolutely be devastating.

Where does it say that they've basically mutinied? Louis of Taranto is still in control of the army in the latest update.

I do think with the two victories the nobles of Naples wouldn't want to fight at this point. Even if both engagements weren't decisive they've showed that they can't win against the lascarids in terms of men or leadership. Charles has already lost, he just haven't realised it yet.

 

[Avrorrange]

tbf its more about what the lords think. I think its very possible that the barons think that Charles iii is the better option bc they know they'll prob be killed like the lords of Achaea if the lascarids get their hands on them, and as a result would be fighting much harder than what you'd expect.

That was done under Alexios. We now have a new despot. It wouldn’t be out of the norm for Theodore to cut them a deal. We will let you rule XYZ if you pledge your fealty to me instead. Just because a king has purged a vassal(they were not really his vassal, they refused to accept the Lascarids’ authority and they were purged after they were defeated), it doesn’t mean he couldn’t be trusted to keep his word regarding certain lords being able to keep their domains.

I would expect the magnates in the mainland to give up earlier than the guys in Palermo and throwing them under the bus.

Where does it say that they've basically mutinied? Louis of Taranto is still in control of the army in the latest update.

I do think with the two victories the nobles of Naples wouldn't want to fight at this point. Even if both engagements weren't decisive they've showed that they can't win against the lascarids in terms of men or leadership. Charles has already lost, he just haven't realised it yet.

They killed Andrew. Morale must have been pretty low for that to have happened.

 

[Quinkana]

That was done under Alexios. We now have a new despot. It wouldn’t be out of the norm for Theodore to cut them a deal. We will let you rule XYZ if you pledge your fealty to me instead. Just because a king has purged a vassal(they were not really his vassal, they refused to accept the Lascarids’ authority and they were purged after they were defeated), it doesn’t mean he couldn’t be trusted to keep his word regarding certain lords being able to keep their domains.

Supporters of defection will say this, but those who fear the lascarids to that point where they'd rather die than defect would be more like this. they also want to retain their power and are willing to die for it. If anything I'd see attitudes in Naples be more amenable to 'getting alternate management' than those in Sicily anyhow.

They killed Andrew. Morale must have been pretty low for that to have happened.

Louis of Taranto and is clique is the ones who instigated this, although after his defeat I do think things would be tense for a bit. seeing the collapse of the Calabrian army would be interesting and make sense, since other than the tarantines the levies and weaker knights who're more ambitious would have little skin in the game/may get a lot of perks from defection.

 

[X Oristos]

After the recent victories, there are two low-hanging fruits for Theodore. Targets that are reasonably important, not maximalist and - relatively- easy to obtain.

The first one is the Pollino Massif, right at the border of Calabria Citra with Basilicata. Half of it is already part of the Despotate. Its basilicatan half provides an additional layer of protection for Calabria as an army located there, can project power over the routes to Calabria. Moreover, it seems that the region should have a greek majority, as it was dominated by basilean monasteries originally founded by Calabrian monks. The most important monastery is St Elias at Carbone that had land holdings all arround Basilicata. The local population should have been in contact with their calabrian brethren across the Pollino. They would have seen the Calabrian commoners to enjoy prosperity and a degree of political power. However, the Basilicatans in the massif were not part of the angevin royal demesne but under the yoke of the powerful Sanseverino and Chiaramonte counts. The Lascarids enjoy a temporary numerical superiority that could allow them to invade the mountain and invest the castles there with the potential help of the local population.

Then we have the main prize, Corfu. The current "eastern" angevin fleet is only 13 galleys strong and the channel of Corfu is of paramount strategic significance for the communication of the two halves of the lascarid realm. It is a unique opportunity. And how knows, perhaps on the way to Corfu, the Lascarid fleet can pass by Gallipoli and see how the local Greeks view the lascarid fleet replenishing its water supplies in Salento.

​