A History of the Oungrikos Dynasty of Roman Emperors: The Six Emperors – 1180 to 1330

Either that or the Hungarians might modernise their bureaucracy. Perhaps closer contact with the Hungarians popularises western weapons such as crossbows. Earlier shoot by volley tactics and anyone?
 
Either that or the Hungarians might modernise their bureaucracy. Perhaps closer contact with the Hungarians popularises western weapons such as crossbows. Earlier shoot by volley tactics and anyone?
I think that is very possible I agree with you
 
Either that or the Hungarians might modernise their bureaucracy. Perhaps closer contact with the Hungarians popularises western weapons such as crossbows. Earlier shoot by volley tactics and anyone?
I think it more fitting that after the 1240s, with Hungary being the junior partner of the union and depending heavily on Roman resources and investment to rebuild as well as the settlement of Hellenes to help repopulate it, it'll amend to be better aligned with the Empire bureaucratically. The process was really started with Andros and his 'New Institutions' policies, which were executed on an Imperial level far more effectively than in OTL when Andrew II inadvertently emboldened his nobles making them too powerful in relation to him. In the Dual Monarchy, with a large swath of newly conquered land he can spread his charity thinner, swamping his rivals with his allies but not compromising his superiority. This would work as well with the Roman nobility as well as the Hungarians.

Andros was initially very popular with the Hungarian noble having been nominated their King already and with his inheritance of the Empire he could assert control over that and knew who he could share some the prize with. Much of the assets he gave out were non-landed too, measured in rights to trades and produce. Many of his benefactors were also relatively low maintenance like the Venetian and Genoese merchant guilds who were effectively mercs on the tap when not facilitators of trade. His son Bela-Alexios II inherits this system of interdependent vassals who rely on a strong empire and strong central bureaucracy to organise it and it allows him to ride the storms he did and seize new opportunities.

Many Hungarian nobles are on board from the start pretty much and its the response to the Mongol threat and the later invasion of Ottokar II of Bohemia which spearheads the byzantinisation of the Hungarian administration and to an extent the culture of Hungary. This would become really evident after the 1270s. Given a few spoilers there of what is to come!
 
Last edited:
On the battle tactics and warfare. I did some reading around about the origin of the hussar which was a Hungarian innovation though it was composed originally of Slavic recruits. They were light units meant to fight infantry and other cavalry units in melee combat as opposed to heavy cavalry like the Cataphracts who would be serving along side them in this ATL. The latter oc were for high-speed, heavy damage charges. These along with the mounted bowmen of many different traditions, Turkic, Greek, Cuman or Magyar would for the main units of highly mobile Roman cavalry armies that would be dominant from the 13th to the 15th centuries driven by the necessity to counter attack horde armies and take their lands.

A Byzantine word for hussar-like units was Chonsarioi who could've been Hungarians or Serbs often enough and carried over the concept to Europe as Hussars. These units would take form in my ATL during the reconquest of Anatolia and the defence of Hungary.
 
Rhoman hussars and crossbow tercios?
Been doing more reading and the Byzantines actually referred to these light cavalry types as Coursers. It's where we get our name for the breed of race horse and I think a few dog breeds used for chasing carry the name to.

So it would be Roman Cataphracts and Coursers!
 
As for crossbows, they'd definitely be there. I'd think that better relations and cooperation with the Italian merchant cities would bring Previse Crossbowmen to Romania. In OTL the later ERE relied on these units to defend their cities and fortifications against the Ottomans.

I still think for the focus of this thread, focus mainly on a resurgent Romania during the 13th and 14th centuries would be mobile calvary. By the time a shift in tactics occurs you've got gunpowder arriving...
 
i have to wonder if they also worked out an stable line of succession within the imperial family
 
Other than the messy succession between the brothers Emerikos and Andros in 1204-5 it was the eldest son who inherited up till Marios. Just a lucky streak I suppose, sometimes they happen. If a crisis were to occur in the future the throne goes to either a maternal descendent from a sister of an Emperor who married into the Greek Aristocracy or a member of a cadet branch of the Komemnos Dynasty.

A sister or a daughter wouldn't be forbidden from succeeding either. The continuity the Manuel Komemnos wanted for the Empire was ultimately made possible by his daughter Maria. Women have previously played the role of legitimisers of Emperors through marriage. Look at Empress Zoe of the 11th century.
 
Timeline
Here we go again...

The later years of the reign of Bela-Alexios II from 1257 to 1270

1257-
To the East of the realms of Bela and his vassals and allies the Mongols spread from the Central Asian Steppe into Persia. Genghis Khan had left orders to his successor Mongke to see through the conquest of the Muslim nations to the South of the Empire the Mongol Empire. Mongke gave his brother Helugu the task of consolidation the Ilkhanate with the two goals of subjugating the Abbasid Caliphs in Baghdad and crushing the resistance of rebellious Ismali rebels across Iran. The Abbasids were in a greatly weakened state by the 1250's after a long period of declining power at the expense of the Ayyubids and Khwarezmians who were now both liquidated by the Mongols and Romans repectively. This left the Abbasids as the last major Muslim realm in the Middle East outside Arabia surrounded by hostile powers.

The Romans and Crusaders meanwhile had been stabilising after a period of rapid expansion and conquest. Allies of the Romans, the Kingdom of Georgia had been incresingly threatened by the Mongol raiding parties cross from Iran into its territory and due to the close alliance between the Georgians and the Romans this became a cause for Roman concern.

Bela send an envoy East on behalf of his Eastern vassals and protectorates to negotiate a favourable resolution to the Ilkhan. Georgia and the Armenian Principalities had alredy been sent a demand to provide levies to the Mongol forces in the Middle East. It was decided by Bela that these should simply compliment a Roman led force which was send east to secure the eastern frontier. Meanwhile Helugu had assembled the largest Mongol force ever seen for the march on Mesopotamia which included units from as far afield as Manchuria and China.

The Roman envoy met with the Ilkhan and it was agreed the Georgians and Armenians would be serving in a Roman Army. One of the most diverse armies of pre-modern times had just been composed with Mongols and Greeks, Italians and Chinamen serving alongside one another.

1258- Events moved quickly, mostly occuring in January of 1258. Helugu had recieve a rejection of his terms put forward to the Abbasids in a way he considered and affront and proceeded to press across the Tigris river to lay siege to Baghdad. Many of the Christians from the Caucasus and Crusader veterans were eager to serve in the army and take the fight to the Caliphate. The Romans provided engineers to aid the besiegers and these engineers built advanced gravity-assited trebruchets, an invention first used in the armies of Alexios I Komemnos.

For Romania the choice to support the Mongol campaign against the Abbasids appeared wise since it was assumed Arab Muslim powers were the chief threat to the newly conquered regions of Egypt and Syria. The Mongols were regarded as having common enemy in the Arabs from early on and Bela had sought to encourage positive relations for some time.

The Siege of Baghdad lasted just 6 days assisted by the trebruchets and an army of 150,000 strong piled through the breaches into the city and sacked it mercilessly. The implications of this sacking would last for centuries. The date 7th February 1258 broke the back of the Arab Caliphate. From now on Islam would be scattered and fragmented. It took less than a decade for three great Muslim empires in Iran, Mesopotamia and Egypt to collapse and for Cairo and Baghdad to fall to Crusaders, Romans and Mongol hordes.

1265- The Romans did not gain much in the way of land during the endevour in Mesopotamia but did ensure the powerful Ilkhanate respected the eastern frontier of Roman control. Georgia and the Kingdom of Jerusalem were protected from Mongol raids through a non-agression pact between Bela and Helugu. Bela wished to secure this frontier on a more perminant basis and even proved willing to offer the hand of one of his daughters to Helugu, Maria, his youngest. (Maria Oungrikos Komemnos is the ATL analogue of Margret of Hungary, daughter of Bela IV. She plays the role of another Byzantine princess who married into the Ilkhante, Maria Palaiologina.)

Before Maria made it to the court of Helugu he fell gravely ill and died and so was wed to his son and successor Abaqa. Such would gain the title 'Despina Khatun' following the death of the Queen Mother, Doquz Khatun, and per Mongol tradition became a figure of spritual guidance. Her predecessor had been a committed Nestorian Christian and many of the Mongol elites were Christians. Her tenure in power and continuing influence over the decades would be pivotal in steering the cause of Iranian history and the Nestorian Revival.

1269- Bela-Alexios' younger son, also called Bela, dies. He was the intended heir to the Kingdom of Hungary, as part of a plan to keep Hungary more stable after his father's death. Bela-Alexios' older son, Stephanos, heir to Romania would also now inherit Hungary, those previous plans now dashed.

1270- Bela-Alexios II (Alexios V aka. The Great) dies in 1270. His son Stephanos succeeds him as Emperor of the Romans and King of Hungary.

TBC

Next: The Reign of Stephanos I and the War against Ottokar II of Bohemia
 
I'm interested to read more about this Nestorian Revival.
I've been thinking up a scenario where Nestorianism endures as the religion of the Ilkhanate. After that maybe some areas of Iran could embrace Nestorianism, thinking specifically the North and Northwest. Mesopotamia would maintain a large protected population of Christians.

I've predicted that since the Jalayirids and Chobanids are effectively successor dynasties of the Ilkhanate they too could be Nestorian and fight over Iran with Roman interference in the later 1300s.
 
I've been thinking up a scenario where Nestorianism endures as the religion of the Ilkhanate. After that maybe some areas of Iran could embrace Nestorianism, thinking specifically the North and Northwest. Mesopotamia would maintain a large protected population of Christians.

I've predicted that since the Jalayirids and Chobanids are effectively successor dynasties of the Ilkhanate they too could be Nestorian and fight over Iran with Roman interference in the later 1300s.
Such a scenario would be interesting to read. I've always wanted to see a Nestorian Il-Khanate. Although, a problem I see is it might lead to conflict with the Muslim subjects, especially since they outnumber the Nestorians.
 
Such a scenario would be interesting to read. I've always wanted to see a Nestorian Il-Khanate. Although, a problem I see is it might lead to conflict with the Muslim subjects, especially since they outnumber the Nestorians.
It'll be a side show to the main Roman plot-line but can become it's own thing. A POD like this that can dramatically change history must be see to do so though...
 
I maintain some hope that the personal union may inevitably become permanent. A single power controlling much of the Balkans would be a very important player.
 
I maintain some hope that the personal union may inevitably become permanent. A single power controlling much of the Balkans would be a very important player.
I'd imagine if that's the case, then Hungary like other regions such as Egypt will become dominions in the 19th century.

I've been floating many ideas over how far and in what direction Romania should expand through the intermittent centuries. Some are more restrained, keeping the ERE contained to the Eastern Mediterranean. Other ideas make her a major world hegemon like a combined Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire would be.

One thing that's thrown me is the status of the Crimean possessions after the 1700s. Is it inevitable they would have to be conceded to Russia at some point to avoid heightened tensions?
 
Manuel I dies and is succeeded by Bela-Alexios who is crowned Alexios II of the Romans
did he get Crowned by the ecoumenical patriarch of constantinople?
Romania and become most widely known as the Oungrikoi Emperors (The Hungarian Emperors
you could write Rhomania(the o is not a long one),also , oi(the)Ouggroi(hungarian) Autokratores(emperors) or oi(the ) magyari(hungarian)autokratores(emperors) is perhaps better
Miaphysite Christians
does he support integration into the Orthodox Catholic church(eastern rite) or the Roman Catholic Church(western rite)
Christianisation of Cumans
were they christianised in the orthodox catholic rite or the roman catholic rite?
Bela-Alexios II is later lauded as a 'rebuilder' of the nation of Hungary for investing so much in these rebuilding efforts. These efforts though kickstart a process of cultural change in Hungary leading to its further intergration into the Roman Empire, including a proggressively greater Orthodox Christian presence
well it seems an orthodox hungary will become a thing or at least some reform of religious tolerance will be made in the future
honestly if Rhomania becomes a great power,the reformers that appeared in the reformation migth be influenced a great deal by orthodoxy
Maria Oungrikos Komemnos
is she catholic or orthodox ?she migth influence how Nestorianism develops

also about the reformation,orthodoxy has underwent the iconoclasm and while it is rigid in some part,it allows room for interpretation,i hope there is no orthodox reformation
 
Last edited:
Top