Isaac's Empire 2.0

[Basileus Giorgios]

Hello, and welcome to my rebooted and relaunched Byzantine timeline, Isaac's Empire. I'd always intended to do a reboot of the TL, but recently, my reading of several contemporary historians, plus a feeling of general writer's block on the older TL, has compelled me to start IE all over again, starting now.

So, how will the new IE differ from the old? Firstly, I should emphasise that the old storyline will continue to form the backbone of that of the second TL. You'll still see scenes like the two Mongol invasions of the Empire, the rise and fall of Pope Samuel, the construction of the Indian Ocean Empire, and the brief bout of Republicanism in the seventeenth century. Most of the other factors in the wider IE world that made the TL notable, like the earlier discovery of the New World, Islamic ascendancy in Australia, and the global dominance of Portugal as a superpower will also stay.

This will, though, be a darker TL. My increased study of Byzantium compared to three years ago has impressed upon me one fundamental detail- ruling a medieval Empire was hard. IE 2.0 will accordingly be less a story of triumph, but more one of repeated rising and falling, with tragedy and catastrophe being at least as common as success and victory. You'll also see new characters interacting with the old- characters who will, in general, make life that bit more annoying for our heroes from IE 1.0.

Finally, one more thing. I'm going to be unashamadely mixing and matching terms and titles from various languages here- Greek, Latin, English, and more. Sorry if you find that irritating, my justification is that I am yet to come across any historian who is entirely consistent in this area!

So, with that preamble done, I'll pass you all over to Ares96, who will present us with a map of the Eastern Roman Empire on September the 1st 1057AD: New Year's day of the Byzantine year 6549. A new ruler has just come to power- welcome to Isaac's Empire.

[Ares96]

Here's a map of the Roman Empire at the start of Isaac I's reign. Hopefully this will serve as some guidance to you when you read the timeline.

[Basileus Giorgios]

The rebel was crowned Emperor of the Romans on the first of September 1057, New Year’s Day and the Feast Day of Saint Joshua. He inherited a system that was, if not at the edge of collapse, creaking at the seams. The Roman Empire was at its greatest territorial extent since the rise of Islam, sprawling from Italy to the Caucasus, but inside this great facade, trouble had been brewing since the death of the great warrior Emperor Basil II. His successors, though individually good and intelligent men, had proved themselves unable to deal with his legacy, and incapable of forging a path of their own through changing times (i). Gradually, the armed forces, descendants of the legions of old, had fallen into disrepair, starved of funds by an Imperial court that simply could not imagine a day when the Empire might lose its hard-fought hegemony. When reform had been attempted, it had been stalled by the opposing poles of a conservative military aristocracy, eager to expand its land and wealth, and its counterpoint, an equally conservative metropolitan bureaucracy, which was reluctant to move away from its ancient traditions. Since the death of Basil, the metropolitan faction had been in the ascendant, trying to imitate his style of rule without understanding the complex structures of domination that Basil had established to maintain himself as the supreme autocrat (ii). Now, though, the helm of the Empire had moved out of their hands, and into that of the Anatolian aristocrats. Through the skill, shrewdness, and simple luck of one of their number, the Empire’s decline would be arrested, and reversed.

Still, as the Emperor’s coronation ceremony played out, there must have been doubts amongst the population. The Empire was battered and bruised by barbarian incursions from all corners, and even her once mighty gold coinage, the Nomisma (iii), had suffered the indignity of devaluation. As the various segments of the population entered the Great Church of Hagia Sophia and prostrated themselves before him, even the rebel general himself surely considered the enormity of the burden he was about to shoulder. As the Patriarch Michael Keroularios lowered the Imperial crown onto his head, and passed him the Imperial Chlamys (iv), the people began to ritualistically chant “Today is the Great Day of the Lord… This is the day of the life of the Romans… Glory to God for such benevolence, you, Isaac, have been crowned Emperor by his own hand”. With this luxuriant ceremonial began the turbulent reign of Isaac Komnenos.

Isaac’s first act as Emperor was to pay off his fellow rebellious generals who had imposed him on the throne in place of the aged Emperor Michael VI. Having no wish to have history repeat itself, he gave them his thanks, a financial token of his gratitude: and a firm order to return to their great estates. There were powerful figures within the Anatolian aristocracy who could easily have threatened his own position, most notably the popular general Kekavmenos Katakalon, who was appointed Doux of Antioch (v). He did not instantly turn on the bureaucrats either, to do so would have been political suicide. In this, Isaac made a wise decision. The support of the bureaucracy would be essential to him in the months ahead, as he attempted to restore to health the Imperial finances.

Basil II had left in his treasury some two hundred thousand talents of gold. Thirty two years later, this was almost spent. Despite periods of fiscal restraint, the state’s resources had continued to be stretched by the demands of maintaining armies on various frontiers, and at the same time, keeping taxation low. By the early 1040s, a balance appeared to have been reached, but this was promptly shattered again by a violent war with the Petchenek barbarians, who had settled around the old Bulgarian capital of Preslav in the early 1050s (vi). By the time of Isaac’s accession, virtually nothing of Basil’s treasury remained intact. It is unlikely that Isaac, a military man to the core, even considered reducing military spending, but he was practical enough to realise that the books of the state had to be balanced somehow. One means of doing so would be to increase taxes on the Anatolian aristocracy, but these were Isaac’s natural supporters, and he had no wish to alienate them. He was left with a single, unpalatable option. Money would have to be obtained from the glittering wealth amassed by the Church.

However, when he turned his attention to Church possessions, he faced serious opposition, which, thanks to the waspish writings of the famous monkish chronicler Ignatius of Phaselis, has blackened his reputation to this day. In 1058 he entered into a major dispute with the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Keroularios. Keroularios was a headstrong figure, who had, for several years before Isaac’s accession, been the most powerful man in Constantinople. Indeed, Keroularios openly believed that Isaac owed him his throne. Over Isaac’s first year in power, relations between the two men deteriorated rapidly, thanks largely to the intrigues of Isaac’s chief minister, Michael Psellos. Psellos’ rivalry with Keroularios was intense and bitter (vii), and it was probably due to Psellos’ advice that Isaac, inexperienced in the ways of political intrigue in the capital, decided to openly declare war on the Patriarchate, by restoring anti-monastic legislation, and moving to seize property from monastic landowners (viii). Keroularios exploded into furious rage, but was quickly arrested by Imperial authorities and put on trial before Psellos. Unfortunately for all concerned, however, the Patriarch died before the trial could begin, making him a martyr to all of Isaac’s enemies. He would soon enough prove to be far more dangerous dead than alive.

It may well have been in reaction to this that Isaac took to the battlefield in the spring of 1059, intent on rooting out the Petcheneks from their strongholds in what had been the old Theme (ix) of Paristrion (x). With hindsight, it was a foolish move, but to Isaac, the reasons for undertaking the expedition must have seemed eminently sane- by removing the Petcheneks, he could both secure his Balkan frontier entirely, in order to be able to transfer troops to the East. As it was, though, the expedition turned out to be something of a fiasco. Encouraged by a couple of small victories, Isaac pressed forward to Preslav- only, once there, to find himself routed by a large Petchenek force (xi). By late autumn, he was holed up back in Constantinople, where the popular mood was turning increasingly sour. Having promised victory and restoration, the new Emperor seemed to be delivering very little but division and defeat.

A reversal of fortune was desperately needed, and, in February 1060, it was finally provided by the middle aged general Rōmanos Diogenēs, the commander of one of the Western Tagmatic armies (xii). Ambushing a Petchenek raiding force as it retreated north out of the Thracian plain, Diogenēs inflicted a serious defeat on the barbarians, and promptly sent the spoils back to Constantinople. The Emperor, delighted by the performance of his general, promptly promoted Diogenēs to the important position of Katepánō of Paristrion (xiii). It was a statement of intent. The following summer, Diogenēs once again advanced on Preslav, buoyed by a contingent of Anatolian troops levied by the Emperor. This time, the result was a decisive victory. Preslav was stormed, and the Petcheneks massacred, with their shattered remnants being shunted across the Bosphorus and settled in the Theme of Armeniakon, Isaac’s traditional power base (xiv).

For now, Isaac’s position had been consolidated, but it was hardly a miracle- indeed, the promotion of Diogenēs only increased resentment amongst other Anatolian aristocrats, notably Isaac’s former close ally, the Doux of Antioch Kekavmenos Katakalon. Isaac was not being unreasonable in this- indeed, in the summer of 1060, Katakalon actively encouraged the invasion of Cappadocia by a band of Turcoman Ghāzīs (xv) in order to despoil the lands of a rival lord. In the West, meanwhile, the Normans continued their advance, evicting the Imperial garrison from its last Kalabrian stronghold at Rhegion (xvi). The Katepánō George Miriarch was brought back to Constantinople in disgrace following an abortive revolt, and replaced with Isaac’s capable brother John, who was named by the Emperor as Caesar and thus his heir apparent before his departure. The circumstances of the revolt of Miriarch are murky, not helped by the fact that our primary sources, Michael Psellos and Ignatius of Phaselis, are pushing clear agendas. What is certain, though, is that Psellos was forced for the second time in his career to make a diplomatic retreat into monastic obscurity.

The troubles of 1060 continued into the autumn, with the failure of the harvests in Epiros and Hellas. By this point, it seems likely that Isaac was beginning to build up a new budgetary surplus, but he did not want to risk three years of hard won fiscal consolidation on relieving the peasants of two poor and marginal Themata. That Christmas, the people went hungry, and Isaac’s already low reputation continued to suffer.

Less than a year after his salvation at the hands of Rōmanos Diogenēs, then, the Emperor Isaac was struggling once more. The year 1061 was marked by a series of riots in Constantinople, one of which almost claimed the life of the Emperor’s wife, Catherine of Bulgaria. For a while, it seemed as though order might be restored when news arrived from Italy that the Caesar John Komnenos had enjoyed a major victory over the Normans at Tarantas (xvii), but news of a further damaging Turkish incursion into Anatolia put paid to this. In October 1062, Isaac departed Constantinople for Anatolia, leaving the reigns of Empire in the hands of the newly appointed Patriarch, his close ally Constantine Leikhoudes. It could very easily have been the very last time he saw his capital.

What exactly happened next is murky. The Emperor established his camp at Ikonion (xviii) in the Anatolikon Theme and there he summoned the great generals of the East, the men who had put him on the throne just a few years before. Once the generals arrived, though, things started to go badly wrong. Early in 1063, led by Kekavmenos Katakalon and Nikēphoros Botaneiatēs (xix), the troops of the Eastern Tagmata point blank refused to accept Isaac as their Emperor, and promptly raised upon their shields Rōmanos Skleros (xx), another of the aristocrats. Isaac was forced to beat a hasty retreat to Cappadocian Caesarea (xxi). All the troubles of his short reign appeared to be coming to a head. The eternal enemy of Roman Emperors had just broken out under Isaac Komnenos: the explosion of armed revolt.
__________________________________________________ _______________

(i) The old view of the Emperors between Basil II and Isaac I as being a universally useless bunch of idiots is now generally rejected. Romanos III, Michael IV, and Constantine IX now enjoy rather improved reputations amongst scholars. Their main failing, according to many modern historians, notably Michael Angold, was their dependence on following models of rule set up by Basil II, when, in reality, that mode of rule had depended on the Bulgar-Slayer himself.

(ii) See Angold's book "The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204" for a more thorough discussion of this.

(iii) The Nomisma (the Latin Solidus) was a coin established by Diocletian in 301 to replace the then very devalued Denarius. It contained about 4.5 grams of pure gold, and maintained this value until around 1050, when devaluation began.

(iv) The Chlamys was a large cloak, with origins in Graeco-Macedonian royal fashion.

(v) This is a minor departure from OTL, where Katakalon was sent into exile by a jealous Isaac. The title of "Doux" is, unsurprisingly, one that corresponds to the English "Duke". Antioch, together with many of the Eastern territories captured between 950 and 1050, was not a Theme, but a Duchy.

(vi) The Petcheneks thus formed a state that would remain for all intents and purposes independent IOTL until the 1090s. The Romans continued to control the Danube itself, and a series of key fortresses, but most other areas of the north Balkans dropped out of their control.

(vii) Psellos once wrote to Keroularios "I love, you hate; I conciliate, you bring hatred; I propitiate, you disdain; I praise, you denigrate".

(viii) This legislation went back to the times of the Isaurian Emperors, and had most recently been enacted by Nikephoros Phokas in the 960s. In all cases, Emperors were concerned that monastic expansion was eroding the Imperial tax base, and the lands of its peasant smallholders, the traditional backbone of the army.

(ix) A Theme (plural Themata) was, literally, a division of the army. In practise, when Roman historians talk about Themata, they are referring to the regions in which specific armed divisions were based. These had sprung up in the seventh century as the old armies of the East retreated into Anatolia, and had been settled on Imperial estates, to form soldier farmers, well adapted to the challenge of raiding warfare with the Arabs. By the 1050s, though, they had become largely moribund, replaced by a fully professional army of both citizens and mercenaries.

(x) See the map. Paristrion is, roughly, modern eastern Bulgaria.

(xi) Here's our POD, folks. IOTL, Isaac thoroughly defeated the Petcheneks, and spent the autumn relaxing and hunting at his palace in Thrace, where he caught a chill and was persuaded to retire. Here, Isaac is defeated and forced back to Constantinople, which is, if nothing else, warm. It's an uncomfortable winter for him, but he stays healthy, and keeps his throne.

(xii) This is the Romanos who IOTL became Emperor in 1068. Here, he's merely a prominent general. The Tagmata were the armies I mentioned above that gradually replaced the Thematic armies in the ninth and tenth centuries. They were made up of both mercenary and citizen contingents. Historically, there was always something of a division between the Western, Balkan, Tagmata, and the Eastern, Anatolian, Tagmata. They would fight alongside each other on occassion, but this was very rare.

(xiii) The breakdown of the Thematic structure can be seen here, with Isaac appointed Romanos as a "Catepan", a sort of millitary-civilian governor, rather than a traditional Thematic Strategos. This is not unprecedented, the reconquered Balkans often switched between being Catepanates, Themes, and Duchies.

(xiv) Very traditional Roman practise here, of moving barbarians around the Empire, and settling them in lightly populated areas to become a new population base.

(xv) Note, these are not Seljuk Turks- they are raiders, who are as irritating and damaging to the Sultan as they are to the Emperor. Seljuk Sultans tried to encourage these tribal people west, to attack Armenians, Romans, and Fatimids without discrimination- just as long as they weren't ruining the "image" of the Turkish ruling class in Mesopotamia and Iran. It was this policy that IOTL led to the Battle of Manzikert, when a confused and weary Imperial army attacked the Seljuks in an attempt to deal with a Turkish problem that was probably not fully understood.

(xvi) This is Reggio di Calabria, if you didn't guess.

(xvii) OTL Taranto, one of the more important cities in Imperial south Italy.

(xviii) Modern Konya. Prior to about 1000, this was a fairly minor provincial fortress, but it became a centre of the important Anatolian trade of cattle ranching.

(xix) Another guy who IOTL managed to become Emperor.

(xx) A scion of an illustrious family, the Skleroi were the major Anatolian aristocratic family of the tenth century. By the 1060s, though, they are fading in importance, becoming increasingly eclipsed by hithero obscure dynasties like the Komnenoi and Palaiologoi. The raising on the shield of a new candidate for the throne is a very ancient Roman practise.

(xxi) This is modern Kayseri, and was one of the largest and most important cities of Roman Anatolia- perhaps the only one on the plateau that did not lose its urban character during the traumas of the seventh century.

[RogueBeaver]

It's baack!

[Mathalamus]

New Year's day of the Byzantine year 6549.

i wasn't aware that Byzantium had their own calender.

[Megas Dux ton Kypraion]

Congrats, BG, for setting up the new thread!

Now, a couple of questions:

I understand that Katakalon is got out of the way by making him Dux of Antioch, but what about Romanos Diogenes? He wins a battle that Isaac won IOTL so what prevents him from taking the throne? As you say, he was an Emperor in our world; why is he so loyal to Isaac?

It's interesting to see Psellos briefly elevated to the chief offices of state (can you tell us what bureaucratic title he held?) before being dispensed with. That is probably a wise move because Psellos' meddling was in no small way responsible for the civil chaos which paralysed the OTL Empire in the third quarter of the 11th century.

I hadn't quite realised that Ignatios of Phaselis is supposed to be a writer contemporaneous with Psellos himself. In the mid-11th century, Phaselis was a ruin which had frequently been plundered by Arab corsairs. Probably Ignatios actually comes from the more substantial town of Attaleia, which we can see in Ares96's map, but perhaps Ignatios' family own the site of Phaselis, which is why the chronicler adopts this 'classicising' epithet (a rather distinctive Byzantine trait). Maybe we'll find out why Ignatios hates Isaac so? And also get an explanation why this medieval chronicler 'survives' into the "modern" age of Isaac's Empire (i.e. why was his work is never lost but preserved for posterity)?

Will also be good to see how the "big cheeses" who, IOTL, were Emperors, like Constantine Doukas and Nikephoros Botaneiates, reconcile themselves with the rule of Isaac...

One last thing:

Originally Posted by Basileus Giorgios

Thirty two years later, this was almost spent. Despite periods of fiscal restraint, the state’s resources had continued to be stretched by the demands of maintaining armies on various frontiers, and at the same time, keeping taxation low.

Shades of current Tory economic orthodoxy creeping into a tale of Byzantium?! I think it is fair to say that Byzantium was, certainly at this phase of its history, definitely one of the places where taxation was not low - and never expected to be. All that complicated paraphernalia of centralised bureaucracy, let alone military, means that the Empire was one of the few places in Europe which ran an efficient tax-and-spend system - a feature which gave the Empire a crucial edge vis-a-vis 'barbarian' fiefdoms for centuries...

Looking forward to what follows!

[Elfwine]

Very nice, Basileus.

It will be interesting to see how Isaac and Romanus handle this situation - Romanus is probably loyal, and as shown here, able...but its going to be a mess anyway. Civil war always was.

Which is reinforcing something I think I'm going to emphasize in my timeline, but this isn't the place to brag about that.

Originally Posted by Megas Dux ton Kypraion

Shades of current Tory economic orthodoxy creeping into a tale of Byzantium?! I think it is fair to say that Byzantium was, certainly at this phase of its history, definitely one of the places where taxation was not low - and never expected to be. All that complicated paraphernalia of centralised bureaucracy, let alone military, means that the Empire was one of the few places in Europe which ran and efficient tax-and-spend system - a feature which gave the Empire a crucial edge vis-a-vis 'barbarian' fiefdoms for centuries...

Low might be relative. Basil was, to put it mildly, harsh towards the aristocracy. His successors, bless their hearts (because that expressions my feelings quite sufficiently), weren't.

So actual collection may be...underwhelming.

[Saepe Fidelis]

And here it is...may it be as sprawling and awesome as the first version.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Oh yeah it's back!

[Darth_Kiryan]

Congrats man. This is absolutely awesome. Great detail. Fantastic footnotes. Well done!

[MarshalBraginsky]

Basilieus, I have a couple of questions regarding the rewritten version of Isaac's Empire regarding Russia:

1) I know that you still have the Mongol invasions and so forth, but how is Russia going to play a role in your rewritten thread? I do have a couple of crazy ideas that you could take a look at, but I'm not sure if it can be used properly. Which brings us to:

2) Would there be a chance of an early split in the Mongol Empire with Jochi, Ogedei and Chagatai vying for the top leadership? Say, Jochi disagreed with his father's selection of Ogedei as the next successor, even though he himself was first born. In OTL Jochi agreed to allow Ogedei to be the successor, but he was disappointed in the end. So that is my idea.

3) Finally, How darker is the rewritten thread going to be?

I'm also doing a rebooting of my Russian TL and I needed help with the possible PoDs for an earlier Russian modernization era.

[Beedok]

Yay, I can get in at the start of this round.

[ByzantineCaesar]

Very good, BG. Congratulations! You managed to rewrite a story and still surprise us. I like the irony - how a lost battle ensured the survival of the Roman Empire. I'm eagerly awaiting the next update.

Also, interesting that Keroularios dies earlier in 2.0. I remember he was exiled to Theodosia in 1.0.

[January First-of-May]

Originally Posted by Mathalamus

i wasn't aware that Byzantium had their own calender.

Yes it did That calendar was, coincidentally, adopted by Kievan Rus (and neighboring Slavic states) sometime in the 9th or 10th century, and continued to be used as the main Russian calendar until the reforms of Peter the Great - long after Byzantium had ceased to exist; so that's where you might have heard of a calendar having 7000-ish dates before.
Well, technically, there were several different variations in that nobody really seemed to agree how many years it was exactly in that Anno Mundi style era (e.g. for the year of Jesus' birth, just about every single date from 5500 to 5510 was used by at least one major group of people, and some even used dates outside that range), but I'd assume that Byzantium (unlike Rus) being a relatively centralized state, it had a single common calendar (presumably one that used either 5508 or 5509 - the two most common versions).

[Elfwine]

You may have already read this, great Basileus, but this looks intriguing: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3132307

This seems like it is part of the recent scholarship (well, using it as a source) you refer to: http://gradworks.umi.com/MR/50/MR50599.html

And this looks good too: http://byzantineee.blogspot.com/2011...tium-from.html

[Basileus Giorgios]

Originally Posted by RogueBeaver

It's baack!

Welcome aboard, RB. Now, I know eleventh century Byzantium really isn't your period, so, was all of this easy to understand for a relative beginner such as yourself? Are there any more terms you think I could explain better.

Originally Posted by Mathalamus

i wasn't aware that Byzantium had their own calender.

Yep, see below. I'll be using the Anno Domini calendar generally, though, for reasons of simplicity. I don't want to put off casual readers by forcing them to wade through Annus Mundi dates.

Originally Posted by Megas Dux ton Kypraion

I understand that Katakalon is got out of the way by making him Dux of Antioch, but what about Romanos Diogenes? He wins a battle that Isaac won IOTL so what prevents him from taking the throne? As you say, he was an Emperor in our world; why is he so loyal to Isaac?

Partly it's simple loyalty to a reigning Emperor- if every general revolted every time he won a battle, the Empire wouldn't get anywhere, would it? Furthermore, Diogenēs is something of a "fish out of water" as an Anatolian landowner commanding the Western armies. He can't really rely on their unquestioned support, so the chances of a revolt from him are slim.

Originally Posted by Megas Dux ton Kypraion

It's interesting to see Psellos briefly elevated to the chief offices of state (can you tell us what bureaucratic title he held?) before being dispensed with. That is probably a wise move because Psellos' meddling was in no small way responsible for the civil chaos which paralysed the OTL Empire in the third quarter of the 11th century.

I'm not sure I agree with the point about the Empire's downfall being down to Psellos' antics. He might have aggravated things, but he probably had the capacity to greatly improve things, too, which is the reason he'll be back in the next chapter. The title he held under Isaac Komnenos was "President of the Senate"- I can't find the original Greek version of that title, though.

I hadn't quite realised that Ignatios of Phaselis is supposed to be a writer contemporaneous with Psellos himself. In the mid-11th century, Phaselis was a ruin which had frequently been plundered by Arab corsairs. Probably Ignatios actually comes from the more substantial town of Attaleia, which we can see in Ares96's map, but perhaps Ignatios' family own the site of Phaselis, which is why the chronicler adopts this 'classicising' epithet (a rather distinctive Byzantine trait). Maybe we'll find out why Ignatios hates Isaac so? And also get an explanation why this medieval chronicler 'survives' into the "modern" age of Isaac's Empire (i.e. why was his work is never lost but preserved for posterity)?

Ignatios is writing his Chronicle in about the 1100, under Isaac's successor. By this point, Phaselis has, yes, shrunk to its very core as a town, but is also home to a fortified set of monasteries, dependent upon nearby Attaleia.

Originally Posted by Megas Dux ton Kypraion

Shades of current Tory economic orthodoxy creeping into a tale of Byzantium?! I think it is fair to say that Byzantium was, certainly at this phase of its history, definitely one of the places where taxation was not low - and never expected to be. All that complicated paraphernalia of centralised bureaucracy, let alone military, means that the Empire was one of the few places in Europe which ran an efficient tax-and-spend system - a feature which gave the Empire a crucial edge vis-a-vis 'barbarian' fiefdoms for centuries...

Looking forward to what follows!

Not at all. There are obviously no concepts of Laffer curves or anything in eleventh century Byzantium- indeed, economic diversification is actively thought by conservative minded Emperors to be a bad thing, as it means peasants will start doing other things than being farmers dependent on the state for their wealth.

Taxation is kept low for a much more mundane reason: high taxes mean revolts against Emperors. The impact of lower taxes, though, is beginning to tell by the early 1060s- the towns that shrank back to being a mere fortress core in the seventh century are now rapidly expanding back out again, and the traditional economy of villages and smallholders is rapidly being swept away as urban culture begins to return to Anatolia.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Very nice, Basileus.

It will be interesting to see how Isaac and Romanus handle this situation - Romanus is probably loyal, and as shown here, able...but its going to be a mess anyway. Civil war always was.

Which is reinforcing something I think I'm going to emphasize in my timeline, but this isn't the place to brag about that.

Thanks for your thoughts. I think we should all be allowed a cheeky plug of our TLs here and there.

Originally Posted by Saepe Fidelis

And here it is...may it be as sprawling and awesome as the first version.

Indeed! Still several hundred thousand more thread views to go...

Originally Posted by Cuāuhtemōc

Oh yeah it's back!

It certainly is!

Originally Posted by Adûnakhôr

Congrats man. This is absolutely awesome. Great detail. Fantastic footnotes. Well done!

Thank you very much. I presume everything was nice and clear for you too, then?

Originally Posted by Sibirskaya

Basilieus, I have a couple of questions regarding the rewritten version of Isaac's Empire regarding Russia:

1) I know that you still have the Mongol invasions and so forth, but how is Russia going to play a role in your rewritten thread? I do have a couple of crazy ideas that you could take a look at, but I'm not sure if it can be used properly. Which brings us to:

2) Would there be a chance of an early split in the Mongol Empire with Jochi, Ogedei and Chagatai vying for the top leadership? Say, Jochi disagreed with his father's selection of Ogedei as the next successor, even though he himself was first born. In OTL Jochi agreed to allow Ogedei to be the successor, but he was disappointed in the end. So that is my idea.

3) Finally, How darker is the rewritten thread going to be?

I'm also doing a rebooting of my Russian TL and I needed help with the possible PoDs for an earlier Russian modernization era.

1. Russia won't play a dramatically different role in v2.0 to that that it did in v1.0, though I don't have any REALLY firm ideas, yet. I can definitely say that the major developments in Russian history in 1.0, like the Union of Novgorod and Kiev in the late 1360s, and the development of Neo-Spartanism in the 1740s will still happen here.

2. If those Mongol ideas work and can do so in a way that's reasonably consistent with the rest of the TL carrying on, then, yes, I'll consider it. Please PM me in more detail nearer the time.

3. Not uber-dark, this isn't going to be apocalyptic. It's just going to be "grittier", rather than darker.

Originally Posted by Beedok

Yay, I can get in at the start of this round.

You sure can! Welcome aboard.

Originally Posted by ByzantineCaesar

Very good, BG. Congratulations! You managed to rewrite a story and still surprise us. I like the irony - how a lost battle ensured the survival of the Roman Empire. I'm eagerly awaiting the next update.

Also, interesting that Keroularios dies earlier in 2.0. I remember he was exiled to Theodosia in 1.0.

Keroularios' death is actually OTL. I changed it in 1.0 so Isaac wouldn't have the problem of Keroularios being a martyr, but hey, problems make a TL more interesting!

Originally Posted by January First-of-May

Yes it did That calendar was, coincidentally, adopted by Kievan Rus (and neighboring Slavic states) sometime in the 9th or 10th century, and continued to be used as the main Russian calendar until the reforms of Peter the Great - long after Byzantium had ceased to exist; so that's where you might have heard of a calendar having 7000-ish dates before.
Well, technically, there were several different variations in that nobody really seemed to agree how many years it was exactly in that Anno Mundi style era (e.g. for the year of Jesus' birth, just about every single date from 5500 to 5510 was used by at least one major group of people, and some even used dates outside that range), but I'd assume that Byzantium (unlike Rus) being a relatively centralized state, it had a single common calendar (presumably one that used either 5508 or 5509 - the two most common versions).

This.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

You may have already read this, great Basileus, but this looks intriguing: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3132307

This seems like it is part of the recent scholarship (well, using it as a source) you refer to: http://gradworks.umi.com/MR/50/MR50599.html

And this looks good too: http://byzantineee.blogspot.com/2011...tium-from.html

Thanks for the links, I will take a look at them!

[Don_Giorgio]

Cool to have Isaak's Empire back!!! I d love to help as much as i can though my primary field is late Roman Empire...

[TyranicusMaximus]

Since everyone else is projecting their fantasies on this timeline, I'd like to project my own. Could Islam do better in this timeline? Pretty please? Seeing the Middle East covered in Roman purple is depressing.

[Finn]

I shall follow this with interest.

[Basileus Giorgios]

Originally Posted by Don_Giorgio

Cool to have Isaak's Empire back!!! I d love to help as much as i can though my primary field is late Roman Empire...

Whatever you feel you can offer, please PM me.

Originally Posted by TyranicusMaximus

Since everyone else is projecting their fantasies on this timeline, I'd like to project my own. Could Islam do better in this timeline? Pretty please? Seeing the Middle East covered in Roman purple is depressing.

I'm afraid that sort of stuff won't be changing. Islam does get most of India and Australia ITTL, though, plus colonies in South America and a surviving bastion of Islamic Spain. So I hardly think IE is an Islamo-screw.

Originally Posted by Finn

I shall follow this with interest.

Please do.