AH Byzantine brainstorming

While playing CKII, and I know I shouldn't let it influence my perceptions too much, I've been thinking of a number of PODs for the Byzantine Empire:

1. John II Komnenos chooses Isaac to succeed him instead of Manuel and dies in the same circumstances as OTL, except with Isaac and Manuel's positions reversed.

2. John still chooses Manuel as his successor but avoids the poisoned arrow incident in Cilicia, living for about, say, 6 or more years.

3. Maria-Xene (Manuel's wife) and Andronikos die before either can influence Alexius II's regency. For the latter, say, when Andronikos is brought before Manuel in chains in 1180, Manuel executes or imprisons him instead of exiling him.

4. Isaac II Angelos manages to avoid or crush the Bulgarian and Vlach revolt. From what I've read, he seemed to be somewhat competant (or at least one or more of his generals were) until after the rebellion.

5. Alexios V Doukas manages to repulse the Venetians and Crusaders in 1204, preferably combined with the death of Enrico Dandolo.

6. Alexios or David Megas Komnenos manage to gain the Imperial throne before or after the Sack of Constantinople.

I'd like to discuss any of these points and get some ideas about them - what effects there would be and any problems that would prevent them from happening in the first place.
 
Last edited:
First, you accidentally wrote three twice, so I'll be using 1-6 to nuber which scenario I'm commenting on.

Offhand, I know the most about 2, 3, 4, & 6

2 doesn't adress any of the bigger problems for Byzantium, at least not directly. Manuel is still going to rule, and if OTL is a guide he will do so rather poorly, not to mention that John living longer doesn't directly influence the chance of Manuel having a son in his late teens or early twenties to succeed him. John might be able to do some good with those six years, but he wasn't followed by a succession crisis, and there is a good chance that nothing extra that he fdoes will survive Manuel's reign.

3 Saves Alexius II and strangles the Angeloi rise to power in its cradle, which can only be a good thing, but Alexius is still a boy emperor, so we can't be sure he will not just be usurped by someone else in the meantime. Odds are good that without strong parental figures to guide him he will be dominated by one or more powerful aristocrats or court officials, so probably still not really good, but better than Andronikos and the Angeloi.

4 Isaac was okay, but putting down the revolt doesn't necessarily save him from his brother, and if he does rule for longer he could hardly be considered good, and certainly not great, in his time as emperor. Best we can really hope for is that he hands the throne off to someone more competent and doesn't live way too long.

6 really doesn't do much. If it takes place before 1204, the crusaders will still try to put OTL's Alexios IV on the throne, and he still won't be able to pay them, so we have at least one more Megas Komnenos dead unless he manages to defeat the crusaders. If he does, the empire is still in shambles, but they've kept Constantinople, so they will probably get to make a peace treaty with the crusaders. If it's after 1204, then the only real change is that the empires of Nicaea and Trebizond are united. Togather, they probably do more or less what Nicaea did IOTL, but possibly with a little more Anatolian focus, and they likely retain the whole Black Sea Coast of Anatolia. After that, Constantinople awaits, and if they are lucky butterflies keep a dominant Turkish power like the Ottomans from forming.
 
Let me add one more possible POD scenario: (and usually happens in a CKII game)

Constantius Ducas becomes sole emperor after the death of Constantine X instead of Romanus Diogenes, becoming the third (there is another Constantius III in the west) to bear that name and assume the highest position in the ERE. In OTL although he was co-emperor he failed to assert himself against Nicephorus III.
 
Manuel is still going to rule, and if OTL is a guide he will do so rather poorly

You know, I do wonder why AH.com has suddenly developed so much hate for the Megas Basileus over the past year or so.

Manuel was a perfectly decent Emperor. He achieved in lasting form the major foreign policy objective of Aleksios and John, subjugating Antioch, and was able to hold a far greater degree of influence over the Crusaders than either his father or his grandfather. Furthermore, he did more than any Emperor since Basil II to improve the imperial position in Eastern Europe, in his conflicts with Hungary.

People can of course point to the failure to shift the Turks from central Anatolia, but I have my doubts whether Aleksios or John would realistically have been able to do this either, in an age where the main foreign aggressors were western European Christians who constantly took the Emperor's attention. From this POV, the fact that Manuel was generally able to achieve a peaceful frontier with the Turks is probably as good as it was going to get.

Myriokephalon was undoubtedly a tactical mistake, but strategically it did very little to undermine the imperial position in Anatolia, with Turkish invasions of the Byzantine areas decisively defeated in 1177 and 1179.

If anything, the problem with Manuel was that after a long reign, the political system had grown excessively dependent on having a very strong and dynamic emperor at the helm, and struggled to cope in the absence of one. But that's hardly the fault of Manuel himself: the same charge can be levelled at Basil II, and I don't think anyone here would try to claim that the Bulgar Slayer was a disastrous Emperor. I think the fact that Manuel was and is known in Greek as "the Great", to my knowledge uniquely amongst Byzantine Emperors, sums up the fact that he was actually a pretty damn successful occupant of the imperial throne.
 
You're probably right. He wasn't bad, but being the last decent emperor before 1204 makes us look at his reign for the source of the problem. Really his great failure was leaving a child to succeed him and no decent regents. Still, I fail to see how John lasting longer directly fixes this, so the overall point still stands, unless Manuel lasts longer or Alexios II is born earlier.
 
Manuel I did the best with a difficult situation he had inherited, by his reign it had become harder to assimilate the Turks of Asia Minor, as their state centered upon Konya had begun to take dynastic and administrative shape. Unfortunately for the Romans, he was not as good of a military commander in the field as his father and grandfather had been, but he did achieve the feat of gaining ascendancy over the Crusader states (not only Antioch but also Jerusalem).

In terms of PODs, the one one that has had me brainstorming the most lately is the following: What if Alexios I decides to relieve the Crusaders at Antioch back at the beginning of all this in 1098? It seems as though he would have secured Antioch and Cilicia then and there. Does anyone think he could have followed this up by taking Konya and the plateau during his march home or in a later campaign (Alexios and John certainly campaigned on the plateau)? The Turks were weak at this moment during the 1st crusade, and Roman rule in both Nicaea and Antioch would have made their situation much more difficult under John II.

If Alexios is able to establish his rule over Antioch, could John spend his reign (and his prowess at siege warfare) reducing the fortresses of Anatolia instead of trying to reduce Antioch ? Just some ideas!
 
You know, I do wonder why AH.com has suddenly developed so much hate for the Megas Basileus over the past year or so.

Manuel was a perfectly decent Emperor. He achieved in lasting form the major foreign policy objective of Aleksios and John, subjugating Antioch, and was able to hold a far greater degree of influence over the Crusaders than either his father or his grandfather. Furthermore, he did more than any Emperor since Basil II to improve the imperial position in Eastern Europe, in his conflicts with Hungary.

People can of course point to the failure to shift the Turks from central Anatolia, but I have my doubts whether Aleksios or John would realistically have been able to do this either, in an age where the main foreign aggressors were western European Christians who constantly took the Emperor's attention. From this POV, the fact that Manuel was generally able to achieve a peaceful frontier with the Turks is probably as good as it was going to get.

Myriokephalon was undoubtedly a tactical mistake, but strategically it did very little to undermine the imperial position in Anatolia, with Turkish invasions of the Byzantine areas decisively defeated in 1177 and 1179.

If anything, the problem with Manuel was that after a long reign, the political system had grown excessively dependent on having a very strong and dynamic emperor at the helm, and struggled to cope in the absence of one. But that's hardly the fault of Manuel himself: the same charge can be levelled at Basil II, and I don't think anyone here would try to claim that the Bulgar Slayer was a disastrous Emperor. I think the fact that Manuel was and is known in Greek as "the Great", to my knowledge uniquely amongst Byzantine Emperors, sums up the fact that he was actually a pretty damn successful occupant of the imperial throne.

I think it's a case of there being justified criticism, but people taking it too far. Personally I consider Manuel to have been brilliant, but a little scatter-brained with problems concentrating.

My main criticisms of him are twofold. First, during the diplomatic visit of the Seljuk Sultan, by all means showcase your wealth, but don't give him so much of it. And make sure the Danishmends stick around.

Second, the invasion of southern Italy was an absurdly expensive waste of manpower and money. Norman Sicily definitely needs to be bloodied so it would stop its trolling, but anything more is a waste. Plus it needlessly offended Venice which will not tolerate any power controlling both sides of the straits of Otranto, which is why it aligned with the Byzantines against the Normans in the 1080s and 1140s.


Another POD would be to have John's two oldest sons, Alexios and Andronikos, not pre-decease him. Such a POD would almost certainly butterfly John's death too since it was a freak accident. Does anyone have any knowledge or sources on how either one of those two would fare as Emperor of the Romans?
 
Wow, just looked at the Wiki article on John II for a quick refresher, and I realized I'd totally forgotten about his son Isaac, AKA the guy he moved down the ladder to let Manuel succeed even though he was both alive and older at the time of John's death. He was considered the better candidate for the throne by a lot of prominent figures, but he never led a rebellion. All I can say is that gives me a whole new level of respect for John II. Seriously, how many times in history does a ruler just get his elder son to let his younger son succeed without a fuss?

Still, Isaac on the throne could be a good PoD. He had allot of kids, I just don't know if any of the boy ones were alive when John II died.
 
It also would have been interesting to see how John II handled the 2nd Crusade. If Alexios has reclaimed Antioch during the 1st crusade, would John have focused on Konya, Ankara, Kayseri etc instead of Cilica, Antioch and Muslim Syria?

Alexios re-establishing Roman rule in Antioch sooner may also butterfly away John's "hunting accident" death, as he would not be spending his time on such a protracted campaign against the Normans and Armenians. Now what John II would do with some extra years to his reign is certainly up for debate...

I have been reading alot about the Crusade of 1101 as well, certainly seemed like a missed opportunity for the Komnenoi to reclaim parts of Anatolia early on...
 
Top