AIMA: a saga of Rome's third millenium.

Proposal for a Komnenian timeline:

The working name of my timeline is going to be “AIMA” (Greek for “blood”) in reference to a prophecy concerning the Komnenos dynasty of the Roman Empire. According to the tales of the day, the first names of 4 consecutive Komnenoi emperors were to start with an A, an I, a M and another A in that order from first to forth. The first three letters have thus far (in my timeline) been a huge success; Alexios I repulsed the Normans and Penchengs, re-established the imperial army and currency, and skillfully took advantage of the chaos surrounding the first crusade to recapture the former Opsikon and Thrakesion Themata from the Seljuqs of Rum. Ioannes II, who is perhaps my favourite Roman Emperor of all, built upon this foundation to strengthen the empire in the east…driving the Seljuqs further back and laying a Roman claim once more to Antioch and Cilicia. Sadly, Ioannes death after a hunting trip in Cilicia (followed by the deaths of his three eldest sons in mysterious circumstances) left the Empire at a crossroads. Manuel I, Ioannes’ surviving heir, has an opportunity to reunite much of the former “heartlands” of the Empire in Anatolia; that is if he can focus upon single goal at a time. Historically (and I know that many folks on this site know this already!) Manuel I was a very frustrating ruler due to his propensity to spread himself and his Empire too thin by pursuing numerous diplomatic, military and dynastic projects at once. Wheras his father had focused his military campaigning upon either an eastern or western theatre (Anatolia and the Balkans) at a given moment, Manuel often put the Romans in situations that entailed military operations further afield, such as in Italy and even Egypt. The amount of monetary expenditure on failed expeditions during his reign was staggering, and often served to overshadow some of the brilliant moments of his reign (1143-1180 AD) that included the decisive Roman victory over Hungary, the establishment of a Roman protectorate over the Crusader States and demographic/economic expansion in Anatolia.
In my timeline, the first POD will have Manuel pursuing a far less aggressive policy against the Norman Kingdom of Sicily (which means no invasion of Italy during the 1150s) and maintaining an alliance with the Holy Roman Empire as a means of limiting Norman expansion. Much of the wealth expended on this campaign, as well as that used on his expeditions against Egypt, will instead be focused upon a slow but steady expansion of Roman holdings in Anatolia at the expense of the increasingly weak Seljuqs of Rum. A second major POD will be a more cautious Roman campaign against the Turks leading to a treaty in 1176 instead of the indecisive battle of Myriokephalon. This will in turn work with the third POD I’ve been working on: Manuel having a son (an Alexios II) who is of age and prepared to rule at the time of Manuel’s demise in 1180. This last POD is borrowed heavily from Elfwine’s outside timeline The Eagle of the Bosphorus, which I suggest that everyone check out. The reign of Alexios II Komnenos will be a major focus of my timeline, and it will be during his reign that the Romans drive the Turks from many parts of central Anatolia and gradually re-establish Roman rule in the region. Since I wish that the Angeloi dynasty had simply never happened, many other changes will place in the late 12 and early 13th centuries including:

No massacres of the Latins in Constantinople, slightly more cordial relations between the Romans and the Italian merchant Republics…we want Alexios II to not face a crusader siege in 1204. The Empire, however, will slowly be influenced more and more by the Italian states and vice versa. Venetias, Pisans and Genoese will be an important part of the life of the Empire.

An increasingly degree of Turkish influence in the Empire’s eastern provinces due to renewed Roman rule over much of Anatolia and the absorption of parts of the Turkic population in a manner similar to the assimilation of the Balkan Slavs by Constantinople in centuries past. Turkish soldiery holding “Pronoia” in Anatolia will be a big part of this.

A reform of the imperial army that leads to an increasing focus upon infantry and siege warfare in the Tagmata, building upon the tactical focus on “slow” campaigning by Ioannes II. The Roman Army in this TL will slowly evolve field armies more akin to the old infantry-dominated Legions…albeit with different weapons such as the Turkic Composite Bow, Greek Fire siphons and “Axe Bearing” heavy infantry ala Varangians.

A rationalization of the aforementioned “Pronoia” system, my goal is for it to stabilize into a means of supporting and remunerating the field troops of the Legions (ha, likely I’ll call them Megala Allagia) . My goal for this might end up being something similar to the Ottoman “Timar” system.

Eventual Roman rule over Serbia, Ragusa and Antioch will occur during the long and very eventful reign of Alexios II…
…leading to the encounter between the Romans and the Mongols as the Empire is transitioning from the Komnenoi dynasty to that of the Paleologai in the mid to late 13th century.

If this all makes no sense, feel free to let me know, I appreciate the feedback and look forward to all opinions!
 
This should be interesting, to see how my alt-Alexius II and yours differ (along with other things).

I am supremely flattered to have my timeline used for inspiration, so I can only hope that it is well deserved.

I'm not convinced a more infantry focus is the best way to go here, but I can follow the logic.
 
Elfwine I'm not convinced a more infantry focus is the best way to go here said:
I'm still working this aspect out, but my historical models include Anglo Saxon Armies of the later period (from which the Romans partially got the Varangian Guard in the Komnenian period), later medieval English armies (ie: of the 13th to 15th centuries) and the of course the earlier Roman Legion and later Ottoman Jannisary systems. Its a bit of a long shot but it could make the armies of Constantinople truly unique in the region during this period. The focus on the types of warfare in which infantry were dominant was strongly practiced by John II...I think with some commitment and the introduction of new weapons (cough...cough...pike and flamethrower formations!). I think this is something where increased Italian influence on the Romans will play a role as well (in terms of infantry and naval warfare being a new focus).

This is all still in phase one though, so flexibility is the name of the game!
 
I'm still working this aspect out, but my historical models include Anglo Saxon Armies of the later period (from which the Romans partially got the Varangian Guard in the Komnenian period), later medieval English armies (ie: of the 13th to 15th centuries) and the of course the earlier Roman Legion and later Ottoman Jannisary systems. Its a bit of a long shot but it could make the armies of Constantinople truly unique in the region during this period. The focus on the types of warfare in which infantry were dominant was strongly practiced by John II...I think with some commitment and the introduction of new weapons (cough...cough...pike and flamethrower formations!). I think this is something where increased Italian influence on the Romans will play a role as well (in terms of infantry and naval warfare being a new focus).

This is all still in phase one though, so flexibility is the name of the game!

Yeah, that's going to be the thing - the Byzantines will want an efficient army, not one unduly infantry-centric. Assuming good leadership, but I took that for granted for your scenario.

I think the late medieval English armies aren't a good model for the kind of warfare the Byzantines will be facing, but given that a strong archery tradition is part of the Byzantine way of war, we might see it for the European tagmata.
 
I feel like the Komnenian army needs to be reformed and standardized by the late 12th century. Whether this simply means formalizing Tagmata by type and function (for example, formal, standing infantry taxiarchies, and named cavalry Megala Allagia) or creating whole, combined arms, "field armies" such as those of the late Roman Empire that are stationed along the frontiers is the main question. The Thema system had broken down heavily by this period, yet its implicit logic was still present, but there are still many ways I could go. You are likely right about the infantry-centric thing, I was thinking about something that would follow the general trend of the "infantry revolution" in the West of the 13th century onwards...but that may not work in Anatolia and Syria.
 
I feel like the Komnenian army needs to be reformed and standardized by the late 12th century. Whether this simply means formalizing Tagmata by type and function (for example, formal, standing infantry taxiarchies, and named cavalry Megala Allagia) or creating whole, combined arms, "field armies" such as those of the late Roman Empire that are stationed along the frontiers is the main question. The Thema system had broken down heavily by this period, yet its implicit logic was still present, but there are still many ways I could go. You are likely right about the infantry-centric thing, I was thinking about something that would follow the general trend of the "infantry revolution" in the West of the 13th century onwards...but that may not work in Anatolia and Syria.

Yeah, there's a reason the Byzantines adopted cavalry as enthusiastically as they did.

My suggestion would be to rebuild the army as a mixed force - solid, capable infantry backing up the mixed melee-and-ranged cavalry, as it was in its days of glory.

Obviously as weapons develop, including pikes and such, there's reason for working them in, but the basic model is not inappropriate versus the Empire's current problems. So long as it doesn't become a static commitment to any given style, it shouldn't be a problem.
 
Good points, then perhaps the model should be a large number of new (and some old) "Themata" in Anatolia and the Balkans defended by troops granted Pronoia grants. Cavalry would largely exist in the Central Tagmata , and the new themes of Anatolia would provide many light cavalry and infantry units (I assume that it would not take very long at all for the Romans to start recruiting soldiers from say, a recaptured Konya or Ceasarea). The use of the Pronoia grants for these new themes will of course be contraversial if one sees the creeping "feudalization" of the Empire as a purely bad thing. However, Pronoia would give soldiers and nobles assigned fiefs in say, Kappadokia, with a vested interest in defending the territory in which their Pronoia was located.

My plan was for these reforms to take place gradually as territory is reclaimed by Alexios II. I'm using Manuel I's successful establishment of a "thema" of Neokastra as a model here...I'm just going to apply it to conquests further afield in Anatolia, where the Proniars would likely be mostly Turkic soldiers.

Thank you again for all of your feedback Elfwine!
 
The problem with the pronia is that they don't merely grant the holder land (as in the old thematic system) but the revenues of that land - or to put it another way, the state loses income with every acre it gives away like this.

So I hope Alexius and successors can keep that from getting out of hand. The Byzantine system - meaning the organized state with an efficient, central bureaucracy - is heavily dependent on having both revenue and the ability to impose taxes.

Still, if this doesn't get out of hand, it might be manageable. It's not as if state land does anything just sitting int he state's hands collecting weeds.

And yes, the Byzantines will be recruiting Turks without hesitation. :D

One thing to note. In my timeline, Alexius is born in 1166/1167 (three years earlier than OTL), and Manuel lives three years longer than OTL, so Alexius is sixteen when he takes the throne - are you doing the same thing here?

Since unless Alexius is of age (and judging by past emperors, sixteen is old enough for a vigorous and determined young man), he's in trouble.
 
Yes! I had Alexios II be 18 when he comes to the throne. So the timing of that should be similar. The problem with under utilizing the Pronoia is that its the sort of institution that would allow Alexios to quickly establish military forces "tied to the land" in Anatolia. The revenue from Pronoia would hopefully attract highly quality troops than the mere land grants of the themata had in the past.

I'm sort of working with two possible models here: one involves Alexios continuing to develop a "feudalized" army based on Pronoia...a development in line with Komnenian and later Ottoman traditions in the region (the timar system had virtually the same pros and cons). The other, perhaps the more radical model, would entail Alexios revitalizing the professional nature of Roman arms and recruiting a smaller force of totally professional Tagmata based upon the models of the Varangian Guard and earlier Scholae. Of course, the latter option would lead to increased imperial control over the new lands acquired in Anatolia, but it would also increase the central governments' defensive responsibilities (ie: standing units would need to be maintained in places such as Antioch, Ceasarea and Trebizond).

I'm also trying to involve the Italian states heavily in the Empire's 13th century fortunes, just as long as the Venetians are somewhat well behaved!
 
Yes! I had Alexios II be 18 when he comes to the throne. So the timing of that should be similar. The problem with under utilizing the Pronoia is that its the sort of institution that would allow Alexios to quickly establish military forces "tied to the land" in Anatolia. The revenue from Pronoia would hopefully attract highly quality troops than the mere land grants of the themata had in the past.

In my opinion, Manuel can live up to another ten years from OTL (his health only declined after Myriokephalon), so you have plenty of room to play around with specifics. One of the reasons for Alexius's earlier birth in my TTL is to develop a different personality - less a young Achilles than a young Odysseus. But that's not necessary, just that I felt it would be better (and more interesting).

It worked for John III OTL, so there are possibilities. Just keep the growth in check and don't let them become hereditary - then we really are talking about feudalism.


I'm sort of working with two possible models here: one involves Alexios continuing to develop a "feudalized" army based on Pronoia...a development in line with Komnenian and later Ottoman traditions in the region (the timar system had virtually the same pros and cons). The other, perhaps the more radical model, would entail Alexios revitalizing the professional nature of Roman arms and recruiting a smaller force of totally professional Tagmata based upon the models of the Varangian Guard and earlier Scholae. Of course, the latter option would lead to increased imperial control over the new lands acquired in Anatolia, but it would also increase the central governments' defensive responsibilities (ie: standing units would need to be maintained in places such as Antioch, Ceasarea and Trebizond).

I'm also trying to involve the Italian states heavily in the Empire's 13th century fortunes, just as long as the Venetians are somewhat well behaved!
I'd suggest rebuilding the central army, with provincial auxiliaries to serve as militia and to flesh it out. That's the model I'm using - something where there are local forces for local level concerns, but the Imperial army depends on the professionals for major campaigns (offensive or defensive).

But I wouldn't say the alternatives are definitely wrong, just that their cons bother me. As for the Italian states, I have no advice there besides keeping them well behaved and trying to play them off against each other - letting Venice have a monopoly is good for Venice more than its good for the Empire even if it doesn't suck the Byzantines dry.
 
Last edited:
whew! sorry I've been absent for so long, work has been a drag. I had a few more ideas about later (post Manuel I with the above PODs) Komnenian Army. What if combined arms formations were grouped together into permanent, standing divisions? For example, instead of having Tagmata of Varangoi and Latinkon that are all infantry or all cavalry respectively, perhaps our alt history "Legions" of Constantinople could be formations of mutually supporting pikes, horse archers...etc. Elfwine, how large do you think the imperial army will get if Anatolia is reconquered? (and presumably themata or Tagmata of Anatolikan/Kappadokia are recruited to defend them).

The last major question I had before setting these ideas into a single timeline was the following: could elective monarchy of some sort develop in Constantinople (I'm thinking later 13th and 14th century developments, not in Alexios II's time)? It would interesting to see if something similar to Novgorod's "constitution" (albeit on a way larger scale) could develop.

And yes! The Italian states will be behaved in this TL initially, I plan to have Pisa in particular develop into a strong Roman ally.
 
In terms of the concerns about Pronoia, I think that it works as long as the soldiers in question are paid from the land's revenues but not necessarily landlords. My ideal would be for the Pronoia to become the means of raising and maintaining professional cavalry units. For example, the pay that a cavalrymen gets from his Pronoia in say, Nicaea, should support him even if he is garrisoned in Antioch.
 
In terms of the concerns about Pronoia, I think that it works as long as the soldiers in question are paid from the land's revenues but not necessarily landlords. My ideal would be for the Pronoia to become the means of raising and maintaining professional cavalry units. For example, the pay that a cavalrymen gets from his Pronoia in say, Nicaea, should support him even if he is garrisoned in Antioch.

Well, how are you going to keep the pronoia holders from reaping all the benefits from this system - since they get the money from the lands granted to them, and don't owe anything except whatever service was required in exchange for that?

It apparently works to a point, but I just think it sounds like a way to get creeping feudalism and a state drained of funds as it becomes more and more dependent on those who provide their services in exchange for pronoia grants.
 
you're right, when I look at it like that there simply aren't enough sticks to go along with the carrots if its set up like that. Its time for the Tagmata to make a serious comeback, I'll stick to the professionals in the TL. This may lead to a separation of "military" versus "civilian" provinces in the Empire, but I don't see how that is a bad thing.
 
you're right, when I look at it like that there simply aren't enough sticks to go along with the carrots if its set up like that. Its time for the Tagmata to make a serious comeback, I'll stick to the professionals in the TL. This may lead to a separation of "military" versus "civilian" provinces in the Empire, but I don't see how that is a bad thing.

Why would you need to separate "military" and "civilian" provinces?
 
After lots and lots and LOTs of reading and research, and after a long vacation, I'm finally ready to formally start this TL. I've been starting with outlining a frame for the yarn stretching from 1143 (the ascension of Manuel I) to 1453 (at which point I will conclude this glorious era of Roman history). The Komnenian, Doukas and Paleologus dynasties will be major players, but events will occur in a more prosperous Empire. This is a post Manzikert Byzantine TL, yet will still occur before the more crucial 4th Crusade. Manuel I has inherited a strong yet smallish army from his father that excels in siege warfare and that (rare for this era) is build upon a foundation of combined-arms warfare.

I canned the infantry focus that I wanted to do at first, as my research has lead me to see the mistaken nostalgia for the infantry legions of past days. The key PODs though shall involve Manuel A: focusing not upon Italy but upon the Balkans and ANATOLIA and B: reforming and rationalizing the Komnenian Army into standing divisions. He will seek peace with Sicily, grant pronoia to new troops in border themata, and will continue his father's re-conquest of Anatolia.


I'm so sorry for the delay, my long personal retreat has left me in better state of mind, do any of you still have thoughts on how Manuel and the Komnenians could have further reformed their military organization?



The Saxon
 
Top