AIMA: A tale of Rome's third millenium, rebooted.

AIMA: A saga of Rome’s Third Millenium, a counter-factual historical epic inspired by BG’s Issacs’ Empire, Elfwines’ The Eagle of the Bosporus and the Komneian dynasty of the Eastern Roman Empire.


The Setting and PODs:

AIMA is a tale of the Empire of the East—that of Constantinople—that neither falls to crusaders in 1204 nor loses its position of central importance in the Mediterranean world as a whole. The timeframe will be set from 1176 AD to 1453 AD, a year remembered in this yarn as one of great change for three continents: Europe, Africa and Asia. The dynasties present shall be the Komnenoi, their immediate successors the Megas Komnenoi and the famed Makrodoukai, the dynasty that reclaims past glories and re-solidifies Constantinople’s claim to be the sole seat of the Roman Empire in a divided Mediterranean World wracked by Holy War, Mongol Hordes, the Black Death and Antipopes. Two PODs shall be allowed in the opening setting: A: Manual I Komnenos will have no biological son and B: he will accept the Sultan of Ikonion’s generous peace terms during his campaign of 1176 directed at the Turks. Manuel I will leave his Empire to his long designated heir; Bela-Alexios II, his son in law and husband to his purple-born daughter Maria Komnena. The Empire that Alexios II inherits faces great challenges yet also possesses enormous potential, the end of Manuel’s reign see’s a victory over Turkish raiders in Anatolia at the battle of Hyelion of Leimocheir in 1178 while in the west the writ of the Basileus still extends over the entirety of the Balkans, including Serbia. Bela-Alexios faces threats from all sides, however, and must take advantage of his blood relations to both the Komnenoi and Arpad dynasties to secure the legacy of his father in law and continue the reconquista of Anatolia inaugurated by the first crusade a century before. On Christmas day, 1180 AD, the Empire stands at a great turning point in its storied history. First though, Alexios must secure his own ascension against internal enemies.
 
So far so good,it looks good and susceptible to versatile twists and turns;go on from here,and start your updates.I will be looking forward for the first one,
I suspect you have effected changes...
 
thank you BG! I will post the first full update tomorrow. The concept of a Hungarian on the Roman throne was made more fascinating by reading about the oh so serious oaths Manuel I made his court swear to support Bela-Alexios if the young Komnenoi in-law were to succeed him. The only dissenter recounted by the sources (to the oath-taking that is) was a certain Andronicus Komnenos...a personage that Alexios II will have to deal with quickly...perhaps even before he takes the throne!
 
thank you BG! I will post the first full update tomorrow. The concept of a Hungarian on the Roman throne was made more fascinating by reading about the oh so serious oaths Manuel I made his court swear to support Bela-Alexios if the young Komnenoi in-law were to succeed him. The only dissenter recounted by the sources (to the oath-taking that is) was a certain Andronicus Komnenos...a personage that Alexios II will have to deal with quickly...perhaps even before he takes the throne!

Of course, swearing an oath when Manuel is around, and keeping it when the time comes . . .

Alexius (using the latinized spelling to distinguish him from any other Alexios) will have to step carefully here.

It's not an impossible situation, but it's not an easy one, even with (presumably) ten plus years in Byzantium.
 
Chapter I: The Ascension of Alexios II Megas Komnenos


Bela-Alexios II was crowned on Christmas day, 1180 AD to subdued fanfare in the Queen of Cities, Constantinople. Although he still had many enemies in the capital and provinces who detested his Hungarian origins, he had spent over 12 years in the Eastern Empire both at the resplendent court of his father in law and in the field as a leader of the imperial armies, the Tagmata. Alexios had been present in Manuel’s council (or synod) at 1176 in the Thrakesion Thema that had received emissaries from the Sultan of Konya…and had been amongst those in support of peace with the Sultan, who offered Rhomania generous terms including tribute and an (often unenforceable) promise to curb Turkoman raiders in Anatolia. Swayed by the sound arguments of his talented heir presumptive Alexios and his leading general the Megas Doux Andronicus Kontestaphanos, Manuel had chosen peace, but refused to withdraw imperial garrisons from the castles of Dorylaeum and Soubaeleum—castles erected to ensure an imperial presence on the edge of the Anatolian plateau.
Concerned by the continued Roman threat to their capital, the Seljuqs continued probing the imperial frontier even after the treaty, which quickly became a dead letter (much like the treaty of Devol a century before). Raids escalated into pitched battles near Claudiopolis and Nicaea, yet the Turks were again driven out due to the timely arrival of Bela-Alexios—who lead the imperial household troops of the Oikos in the ageing Manuel’s stead. In 1178 a great victory, the last of Manuel’s reign, was won over the Turks at Hyleion and Leimocheir in the Maenander River valley when the Eastern Tagmata under the command of John Komnenos Vatzates ambushed the main Seljuq field army, laden with booty from raiding, and annihilated it.
Thus by 1180 and Alexios’ ascension Roman fortunes were looking up in Anatolia despite Manuel’s constant, and expensive, pursuits in Italy and the Levant. The first two years of Alexios II’s reign saw a series of Turkish raids into the Opsikon Thema, but in 1181 the new Basileus defeated one of these sharply near the fort of Malagnia south of Nicaea, and in 1183 Alexios led an expedition towards Trebizond that secured the route from Constantinople to that Pontic seaport. While on these expeditions in the opening phases of his reign, Alexios dealt with many loose ends on the Empire’s eastern frontier, including the troubled existence of the exiled (and ageing) Andronicus Komnenos in Paphlagonia—an existence that ended due to an “accident” on a hunting trip with his companions in arms . This accident was eerily reminiscent of the death of John II 40 years before insofar as it involved a wound from a poisoned arrow. Foul play on the part of the new Basileus, whose army was present in Paphlagonia at the time securing that region against Turkoman raiders, was of course suspected by many yet could never be conclusively proven. Whatever the case, Alexios II feared the plotting Andronicus despite the latter’s advanced age and certainly wanted to secure his still recent claim to the throne of Megas Komnenoi of the Roman Empire.

1184 saw the defeat of Jerusalem (Battle of Hattin) to the dreaded armies Saladin Ayyub, Sultan of Egypt and all Syria, an event which convulsed all of Christendom and which of course eventually triggered the 3rd Crusade—that of the Kings—and which actually ended up aiding the Christians of the East far more than its predecessors had. Alexios II, finally feeling more secure upon his throne (he had also led a punitive expedition against the Serbs of Rascia in alliance with his blood relations of Arpad Hungary, but had spent the majority of his first 4 years upon the throne close to the Queen of Cities), marched to Cilicia in response to this and did much to restore the shaky Roman rule in that region, seeing as though the local Muslim and Christian powers were far more interested in the high drama occurring in the Holy Lands to the south. Having restored a pro-Roman Hetumid Armenian to the position of Doux of Adana, Alexios returned to his capital slowly, and stopped near Attalia to restore a number of castles north of that town in order to begin the process of rebuilding the Cibyrrhaeot Thema that connected Cilicia and the Roman lands of Western Anatolia. Alexios erected a great castle known as “Alexiokastron” north of Attalia and garrisoned it with locals and Latin mercenaries in a manner similar to his father in laws’ foundations of Neokastra and Dorylaeum. After parceling out some of the fertile lands surrounding Attalia to Pronoia soldiers whose lands were theoretically made profitable by the emperors’ policy of castle building to deter the Turkomen, Alexios returned to Constantinople in time to celebrate Christmas in grand style.
1185 to 1187 were peaceful years, Alexios had thus far been free to campaign against his foes in Anatolia due to blood relation to crown of Hungary to his west and his judicious surrendering of many of Manuel I’s western conquests to local powers: The Banate of Bosnia was once again under Magyar rule, upper Dalmatia was fully restored to the Venetians as compensation for past “Greek” aggression, and the Serbs of Ras had thus far been cowed by the apparently improved relations between the Arpads’ and Constantinople. Alexios was certainly criticized by many in his young court for retreating the western frontiers so drastically, yet he had little choice in reality. The Empire’s most pressing enemies lay to the East, and her most likely allies against those enemies lay to the West, as long as the Balkan Peninsula was dominated by his crown, Alexios saw no need to antagonize Venice, Sicily and potentially the German Emperors’ in the same way that his father in law had. In any case, Alexios wanted to join the crusading movement (ostensibly against Saladin) in order to weaken the Seljuqs of Konya, a desire that the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187 and the following calling of the 3rd Crusade made a reality.


Alexios had raised his eldest son Peter Megas Komnenos to the throne as his heir presumptive in 1186—another step in securing his position, things were looking up for the Empire, despite the loss of Manuels’ conquests. The arrival of armies of the 3rd Crusade however, shattered this brief reprieve for the New Rome and brought the “guardsmen of Ares”, as Anna Komnena would call them, back to the fore of Alexios’ foreign policy.
 
An image of Alexios II Megas Komnenos:

bela-III.jpg


view;_ylt=A2KJkPoeoLtQGGEAV8OJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n



The rulers of Constantinople descended from Bela III Arpad in this TL will declare themselves Megas Komnenoi as part of their imperial titles, in a manner similar to the Emperors of Trebizond.
 
I'll have chapter II up on Tuesday, I'm going to try to cover most of the 3rd Crusade!

Why not try and space out the TL, so you can begin to develop characters (liek how Basileus444 is doing it and how I eventually plan on doing it) and their personalities?
 
Why not try and space out the TL, so you can begin to develop characters (liek how Basileus444 is doing it and how I eventually plan on doing it) and their personalities?

Oh please don't.

So many people take up the narrative route of developing historical characters and grinding the timeline into dust with dialogue.

Timelines should be at least relatively quick. Historical events should happen in a post, and there should be at least a decent amount of time passing in a post.

The amount of time passed in a post depends on the scope that the timeline's author wishes to encompass. If its a timeline focusing on a relatively small amount of time (such as an American election) or even a few decades (say covering the lifetime of some major character [see Edt's timelines about Cromwell and Churchill's father]), then its fine to get really into the characters involved.

BUT, if your timeline will encompass centuries and whole dynasties rising and falling, then your entries should cover more ground faster. A good example would be Thande's Look to the West. It covers over a century already of changes, and he still is able to get into alot of minutea without slowing down the timeline terribly.

The key is pacing.

The pacing you have in the timeline so far is good in my opinion.

Explain your reasoning for changes, and detail them. Point out cool bits obviously, or delve into things you think are interesting, but please, let the timeline have some pacing to it.

If someone wants to write an AH historical novel, that is totally their perogative but that should go into the writing forum.

To end all of this I should say this. I like your timeline and I like the way it is written (a few more spaces between paragraphs might not hurt though). If you keep at it the way it seems to be going, I will gladly subscribe to this timeline.
 
I don't mind a more narrative approach, but I'd say narrative should be used as a tool to illustrate things rather than as a primary style (if asked for my opinion).

I don't agree that it should be relatively quick. I like detail. Especially for periods where things with major impacts down the road are happening.
 
I don't agree that it should be relatively quick. I like detail. Especially for periods where things with major impacts down the road are happening.

The key word was relative, as I explained that it really depends on the scope the timeline wishes to take.

I also said there was nothing wrong with going into details. Just that pacing is important.
 
Last edited:
I did read your post. I just don't agree with you.

This timeline: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=52457 for instance is far too short on detail and elaboration for my tastes.

I know you did. I felt that your disagreement miscontrued my stance is all.

As for the example timeline, I see nothing wrong with it, but I can't admit to have read it except by a cursory glance.

I suppose it really comes down to taste, which is something we probably won't agree on.

I enjoy both very detailed timelines and also sparse ones (take for example Tony Jones timelines, which I enjoy immensely [though to be honest, I like his setting descriptions of the modern day of his ATL's the most]).

Perhaps I am more of a results man than a "voyage is the destination" kind of guy in regards to timelines. That doesn't make my opinion on how timelines should be written any more significant than any others. It is simlply my way of viewing things. It probably also counts for why I myself have never written a timeline:p
 
I know you did. I felt that your disagreement miscontrued my stance is all.

Well, you seem to think that we should have a decade or more of events in a single post, and I think that's - generally speaking - moving much too quickly.

As for the example timeline, I see nothing wrong with it, but I can't admit to have read it except by a cursory glance.

I suppose it really comes down to taste, which is something we probably won't agree on.

Precisely. From the point of view that moving quickly through events is good, that timeline is fine. From the perspective of wanting detail, it's not.

Among other things that come to mind not relevant here.
 
Well I hope I'm hitting a happy medium thus far for historical and character detail combined with a narrative that makes forward progress through time :)

Obviously I want to illustrate the fact that Alexios II will often feel uncertain about venturing too far away from Constantinople and will thus be unable to reassert full authority over Antioch in his reign (this is also why it was for him to abandon Croatia, Bosnia and Dalmatia). This shall be further illustrated through the passages of the armies of the third crusade through imperial lands.

Peter I Megas Komnenos, his successor, will be sketched out as a more confident ruler. Other characters at court, in the Tagmata, and in the Oikos of the Basileus will be examined as well.

Thank you for the feedback and I hope all are enjoying so far!
 
The Third Crusade: That of Emperors, Kings and reconquest. Part I 1187-1189 AD


The battle of Hattin and the following fall of Jerusalem to the forces of Saladin, Sultan of Egypt and all Syria, in 1187 shook all of Christendom, including Rhomania. Frederick I Barbarossa of Germany, despite his advanced age and his recent failures to impose full “imperial control” over the communes of northern Italy, took up the cross in spring of 1188 and soon set out for the Holy Land with an immense army drawn from across his realm. Frederick’s forces exclusively utilized the land route to the Holy Land, and thus were quickly marching (and plundering) their way through the Balkan regions of Rhomania. Frederick sought the glory of marching into Jerusalem, however, and did not desire further conflict with the ruler of the Romans and Megas Komnenos Alexios II.
For his part, Bela-Alexios had sought an end to the Romano-German “Cold War” since the start of his reign, and following the settlement between Frederick and the Lombard League in the wake of the Battle of Legnano (1176) relations had improved somewhat. The arrival of the Hohenstaufen Emperor’s army at the gates of Constantinople was thus a cause for consternation and a potential opportunity for Alexios and his Megas Domestikos Andronicos Konstephanos (whose forces had protected the frontiers of the Empire of late) to attack the Seljuks of Anatolia, who were the emperor’s enemy of choice. The German army, sadly, had been ill-behaved towards many communities along the road from Belgrade to the Queen of Cities, and tensions were naturally running high between Christendoms’ two most powerful lords. Despite this, the two emperors’ mutual desire to be seen as champion of the crusader cause as well as their fear of each other’s armies led them to an accord. Alexios had no desire to see his foreign policy in the West be dominated by the antagonism between the two Empires’ that his father in law had bequeathed to him, and wanted to utilize the crusade to continue the progress of the Roman reconquest of Anatolia. Frederick, for his part, saw Bela-Alexios as a both a potential foe and a fellow Christian Emperor whose vast armies, fleets and wealth could aid his passage to the Holy Land.
Thus, just as Manuel I and Conrad Hohenstaufen had almost half a century before, Alexios and Frederick vowed to take up arms together against their mutual foe. Unlike Manuel, though, Alexios intended to march against the Turks with the German Emperor, and sought to firmly establish his rule over the Turks of Konya. In the spring of 1189 the two armies set out across the Bosporus and into Bithynia. In return for a cessation of Roman financial support for the Lombard League in Italy, Frederick agreed to assist the Basileus in taking Konya and other towns on the Anatolian plateau with his ponderous yet impressive army. The still mighty imperial navy, greatly bolstered under Manuel I and his successor, would be placed at the disposal of the crusade as well in the Levant. Alexios personally led his own forces, some of the finest soldiery in Christendom, including the Varangian and Vardariot Guards as well as a powerful siege train. A third force, of some 3,000 Hungarians led by Prince Stephan Arpad, joined Alexios’ forces. Though the joint forces of the emperors’ were harassed continually by Turkoman raiders after passing thru the border fortress of Dorylaeum, the Sultan could do little to hinder their progress without risking the absolute destruction of his numerically weaker field army. Alexios, taking advantage of the divided Turkish attention, marched upon Ancyra with the bulk of his forces while leaving a detachment under the command of John Komnenos Vatatzes, his Megas Hetaireiarches, alongside Frederick’s crusaders, who soon found themselves camped in the Sultan’s favourite pleasure gardens just outside of the walls of Konya.
Despite the continuing tensions between the Germans and Romans, Alexios was determined to take advantage of this “Kingly” Crusade and direct the growing power of the Komnenian realm to regions of Anatolia that his predecessors’ had long dreamt of re-claiming for Rhomania. Alexios, still facing internal opposition from those who felt that Manuel I had been misguided in promoting the Arpad prince, also sought to make his throne stable for himself and his son, the talented Despotes Peter Komnenos. The stage was set for the first, and perhaps most historically decisive, clash of the 3rd Crusade.
 
Enjoyed the update. Just curious, could any tensions erupt between the Greeks and Germans to make them stop co-operating?
 
Top