Alt plausibility - Emperor William I or Rhomania-Georgia union

[ByzantineLover]

A. From what I've read, Manuel I Komnenos was planning to marry his daughter Maria to King William II 'the Good' of Sicily before she was ultimately married to Renier of Montferrat. What if the marriage had gone through? Would Maria have had a stronger military backing for her claim to the throne or would she be seen as selling out her people to the Normans?

In OTL, William invaded the Balkans and captured Dyrrhachium, Corfu, Cephalonia and Ithaca and captured and sacked Thessalonica. I'd imagine if he was trying to win the people over he would avoid such things.

Ultimately, who would end up ruling if they kicked Alexios II/Andronikos/Isaac II off the throne? I'd guess Maria, since the Greeks would never accept a Norman Catholic as emperor.

B. In 1180, Andronikos' second son Manuel was married to Rusudan Bagratoni, daughter of King George III of Georgia and sister of Queen Tamar the Great.

What was the objective of this marriage? Did Manuel arrange it? Why not his own son Alexios instead of the son of his notorious cousin? Wouldn't Georgia be a better/a closer ally than France?

And yes, both of them would be about 9 years older than Alexios, but hey, Eleanor of Aquitaine was 9 years older than Henry II and they still had children.

 

[ByzantineLover]

Bumped to first page if anyone's interested.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Off the top of my head: As to why Manuel would seek to ally with France over Georgia, he was quite the Occidental-phile --- his armies had a large component of Western knights and troops, among other Western affinities. There wouldn't be the religious issues and Georgia was at its strongest. Perhaps he saw France as potentially balancing out any threat from Norman Sicily.
It might of been a good time to ally more with Georgia at this time, though. There wouldn't be the religious issues associated with marrying non-Orthodox and Georgia was at its strongest, as well as having many common concerns. The Empire's attentions seemed to be focused more Eastwards at the time of the end of Manuel's reign, as well.

 

[ByzantineLover]

Off the top of my head: As to why Manuel would seek to ally with France over Georgia, he was quite the Occidental-phile --- his armies had a large component of Western knights and troops, among other Western affinities. There wouldn't be the religious issues and Georgia was at its strongest. Perhaps he saw France as potentially balancing out any threat from Norman Sicily.

If Manuel wanted a European counter to the Normans, wouldn't England or the HRE have been a better choice? To name a few examples, Henry II's youngest daughter Joan was only 4 years older than Alexios II (OTL, she married William II of Sicily), and Frederick Barbarossa had his youngest daughter Gisela (1168-1184).

It might of been a good time to ally more with Georgia at this time, though. There wouldn't be the religious issues associated with marrying non-Orthodox and Georgia was at its strongest, as well as having many common concerns. The Empire's attentions seemed to be focused more Eastwards at the time of the end of Manuel's reign, as well.

Perhaps the best option would have been for Manuel to marry Maria to William II of Sicily and Alexios II to Tamar (she was only 9 years older than him. Eleanor of Aquitaine was 11 years older than Henry II). Though a few issues I can see with Alexios & Tamar are:

1. George III's other daughter, Rusudan, was already married to or in an affair with Andronikos Komnenos's son Manuel.

2. Tamar and Rusudan were George III's only children. I'm not sure if there any other male members of the Bagrationi dynasty at the time.

 

[LSCatilina]

If Manuel wanted a European counter to the Normans, wouldn't England or the HRE have been a better choice? To name a few examples, Henry II's youngest daughter Joan was only 4 years older than Alexios II (OTL, she married William II of Sicily), and Frederick Barbarossa had his youngest daughter Gisela (1168-1184).

I don't think Manuel specifically searched for a counter in this union, but to tie deeper relations with Latins other than Crusaders States (that he already had under his de facto suzerainty) or maritime republics (that already had too much importance). Montefferat was already an ally of byzantine policies in Italy.

England wasn't a good choice because simply too far and in misdt of civil war, Capetians couldn't really intervene in Mediterranean basin, HRE was an actual competitor for the imperial title (depsite their good relations) and Sicily actually fought against Byzantines.

That didn't let much choice to both strengthen relations with Latins, and have them being useful.

Anyhow, the simple idea that a Latin could take the imperial throne is going to make Byzantine nobility, clergy and population nuts. As in : A wild Byzantine claimant appears, use "acclaimed by the populace", wow, it's super effective!

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but "Rhomania" doesn't have any historical backing. The Byzantines called their state Basileia Rhōmaiōn, meaning "Roman Empire."

 

[ByzantineLover]

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but "Rhomania" doesn't have any historical backing. The Byzantines called their state Basileia Rhōmaiōn, meaning "Roman Empire."

Noted, and Basileia Rhōmaiōn does sound cool, but, to me at least, Rhomania just rolls off the tongue a bit easier.

Do you have any opinions on the topics originally posted?

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Noted, and Basileia Rhōmaiōn does sound cool, but, to me at least, Rhomania just rolls off the tongue a bit easier.

I think that "Rhomania" is a kind of a later, after the fact, portmanteau word coined to be both easy to use and say and convey a difference from the old Roman Empire.
I'm not even sure if citizens of the Empire used "Basileia Rhōmaiōn" in everyday use.

edit: I'll take that back. Ῥωμανία, (Rhōmanía) or Rhōmaís (Ῥωμαΐς) were also used by Byzantine denizens, back in the day....
So, there you go. All of our many Byzantine TL writers are in the right!
If you are an officious bureaucrat of the Empire, you'd most likely use Basileia Rhōmaiōn,

 

[Wendell]

I think that "Rhomania" is a kind of a later, after the fact, portmanteau word coined to be both easy to use and say and convey a difference from the old Roman Empire.
I'm not even sure if citizens of the Empire used "Basileia Rhōmaiōn" in everyday use.

edit: I'll take that back. Ῥωμανία, (Rhōmanía) or Rhōmaís (Ῥωμαΐς) were also used by Byzantine denizens, back in the day....
So, there you go. All of our many Byzantine TL writers are in the right!
If you are an officious bureaucrat of the Empire, you'd most likely use Basileia Rhōmaiōn,

Historical or not, I think it's plausible for the common name "Rhōmanía" to have caught on in alternate timelines where the Empire survives, but is well beyond its height in influence or power.

A. From what I've read, Manuel I Komnenos was planning to marry his daughter Maria to King William II 'the Good' of Sicily before she was ultimately married to Renier of Montferrat. What if the marriage had gone through? Would Maria have had a stronger military backing for her claim to the throne or would she be seen as selling out her people to the Normans?

In OTL, William invaded the Balkans and captured Dyrrhachium, Corfu, Cephalonia and Ithaca and captured and sacked Thessalonica. I'd imagine if he was trying to win the people over he would avoid such things.

Ultimately, who would end up ruling if they kicked Alexios II/Andronikos/Isaac II off the throne? I'd guess Maria, since the Greeks would never accept a Norman Catholic as emperor.

B. In 1180, Andronikos' second son Manuel was married to Rusudan Bagratoni, daughter of King George III of Georgia and sister of Queen Tamar the Great.

What was the objective of this marriage? Did Manuel arrange it? Why not his own son Alexios instead of the son of his notorious cousin? Wouldn't Georgia be a better/a closer ally than France?

And yes, both of them would be about 9 years older than Alexios, but hey, Eleanor of Aquitaine was 9 years older than Henry II and they still had children.

Interesting, but neither eventuality seems particularly plausible. Either Normans convert, like the family Raoul/R(h)allis, or some branch of the Bagrationi rule in Constantinople while a separate one rules Georgia. The latter is easier than the former I suspect.