AHC: How to avoid Andronikos I Komnenos

I've been playing a lot of Crusader Kings II again and it's gotten me thinking about alternate Byzantine history. Again. Specifically on how Manuel I Komnenos' reign could diverge so that the empire would avoid the reign of Andronikos I and consequently the Angeloi dynasty.

Which of the following would produce the best, for lack of a better word, results?

1. Manuel has at least one son with his first wife, Bertha of Sulzbach, and either his daughter Anna survives or his campaign against the Normans is successful (successful enough to gain Apulia anyway).

2. After Bertha and Anna die as in OTL, Manuel legitimises one of his bastard children by Theodora Vatatzina, also named Alexios (I think he shows up in CKII as the Doux of Dalmatia) before he remarries.

3. Myriokephalon still happens and Manuel dies on schedule but Maria-Xene dies earlier and Alexios II's regency council is headed by someone else, like John Komnenos Vatatzes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Komnenos_Vatatzes

I'm eager to try some of these out in CKII, particularly the last one after re-reading 'The Reign of Romulus Augustus'.
 
I've been playing a lot of Crusader Kings II again and it's gotten me thinking about alternate Byzantine history. Again. Specifically on how Manuel I Komnenos' reign could diverge so that the empire would avoid the reign of Andronikos I and consequently the Angeloi dynasty.


Hm. Of those, I would recommend #1. #3 is possible, #2 - a bastard is going to have trouble being accepted.

Any of them on paper could work, but ideally you want a circumstance where Andronicus taking the reins isn't quite so appealing to people - remember, Andronicus looked like the savior of the state in 1183.

Which says a great deal about both his charisma and the state of affairs - the former is beyond the scope of your questions, but the latter can be dealt with if Manuel leaves his heir (whoever that heir is) with a situation not about to collapse.

The Empire's far from finished off - but its financially exhausted and with several states planning to kick it in the ribs (Serbia, possibly Hungary, Bulgaria if things go south, the Seljuks, Sicily). So naturally a popular figure with military succeses under his belt is going to look very appealing, especially when the legitimate heir really isn't overwhelming anyone.

Vatatzes might make a good regent, but that's not really as strong a position (in people's esteem) as a capable emperor.
 
Hm. Of those, I would recommend #1. #3 is possible, #2 - a bastard is going to have trouble being accepted.

Any of them on paper could work, but ideally you want a circumstance where Andronicus taking the reins isn't quite so appealing to people - remember, Andronicus looked like the savior of the state in 1183.

Which says a great deal about both his charisma and the state of affairs - the former is beyond the scope of your questions, but the latter can be dealt with if Manuel leaves his heir (whoever that heir is) with a situation not about to collapse.

The Empire's far from finished off - but its financially exhausted and with several states planning to kick it in the ribs (Serbia, possibly Hungary, Bulgaria if things go south, the Seljuks, Sicily). So naturally a popular figure with military succeses under his belt is going to look very appealing, especially when the legitimate heir really isn't overwhelming anyone.

Vatatzes might make a good regent, but that's not really as strong a position (in people's esteem) as a capable emperor.

To be honest, apart from losing Bosnia and Dalmatia and killing Alexios and Maria, I wouldn't have any problems with Andronikos becoming emperor. He seemed like a decent emperor until he started blinding or killing everyone around him.

Perhaps another POD would be Andronikos having an 'accident' before his paranoia really starts to kick in and being succeeded by either Of his sons, John or Manuel (OTL father of Alexios and David of Trebizond). Although, from what I've read, both of them were incompetents. Don't take my word for that though.
 
Honestly I'd say Andronikos just needs to be more competent in his paranoia, his campaign against corruption among the beuracracy was actually probably good for the empire and it's finances and it doesn't hurt to have the upper class cowed into accepting imperial authority is what matters.
 
Or what if he somehow manages to become Emperor instead of Manuel (or shortly after Manuel from per say, an accident) around 1140?
 
Or what if he somehow manages to become Emperor instead of Manuel (or shortly after Manuel from per say, an accident) around 1140?

Well, he would be young and I think he was in the army at the time and would most likely have a different personality from his later reign.
 
Well...

Andronikos Komnenos was born early in the 12th century, around 1118. He was endowed by nature with the most remarkable gifts both of mind and body: he was handsome and eloquent, but licentious; and, at the same time, active, hardy, courageous, a great general and an able politician. Andronikos' early years were spent alternately in pleasure and in military service. In 1141 he was taken captive by the Seljuq Turks and remained in their hands for a year. On being ransomed he went to Constantinople, where was held the court of his cousin, the Emperor Manuel I Komnenos, with whom he was a great favourite. Here the charms of his niece, Eudoxia, attracted him and she became his mistress. In 1152, accompanied by Eudoxia, he set out for an important command in Cilicia. Failing in his principal enterprise, an attack upon Mopsuestia, he returned, but was again appointed to the command of a province. This second post he seems also to have left after a short interval, for he appeared again in Constantinople, and narrowly escaped death at the hands of the brothers of Eudoxia.

He would've made a great ruler in his own right.
 
Except that he didn't.

That's the problem, we do have OTL to show how he ruled - and his bloodthirsty paranoia is hardly encouraging even if his firm stance on corruption was a much needed thing.
 
A few posts have alluded to Andronikos's ability as a general. Did he actually win some battles? I know he was along for the ride on some of Manuel's and George III of Georgia's successful campaigns, but I don't know how integral he was to their outcomes. Or is this forum getting as mesmerized by his personality as his contemporaries did?
 
A few posts have alluded to Andronikos's ability as a general. Did he actually win some battles? I know he was along for the ride on some of Manuel's and George III of Georgia's successful campaigns, but I don't know how integral he was to their outcomes. Or is this forum getting as mesmerized by his personality as his contemporaries did?

I don't either, I've always heard him reported as having a good military reputation but I don't know how much that actually reflected actual ability.
 
Top