Bela-Alexios: Manuel I succeeded by son-in-law.

Megas Doux

POD that intrigues me to no end: in 1169, Manuel Komnenos' second wife Maria of Antioch gives birth to a girl, not a boy (OTLs Alexios II).

Bela III (Bela Alexios) of the House of Arpad is still betrothed to Maria Komnene at this point and, in 1169, is still the Despotes, heir-designate to the throne. If Maria of Antioch does not give birth to a son in 1169, should we expect Bela-Alexios to succeed Manuel as Basileus?

Furthermore, when Stephan III of Hungary dies in 1172, would a Bela III who is still heir to the Komnenos crown go to Hungary to claim its crown while Manuel is still alive, or would he allow his younger brother Geza to reign as an ally or vassal? For more info on Bela III: http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/hunspir/hsp12.htm

Considering Bela's track record as King of Hungary from 1172-1196, he was an effective and diligent ruler. Manuel obviously saw this potential in him, and had forced his nobles to swear oaths to Bela and Maria in 1165 as heirs of the Empire.

I wonder what Manuel's course of action would be in 1172 when, still without a son and with Bela and his betrothed Maria Komnene as his heirs, the crown of Hungary becomes vacant....perhaps Manuel will then have Bela-Alexios and Maria formally wed once and for all in order to strengthen the Roman claim to Hungary. With Manuel having no son, is Bela-Alexios not the logical first choice as a successor due to his betrothal to Manuel's daughter Maria?
 
Byzantine fanatic

Byzantine fanatic

Megas Doux said:
POD that intrigues me to no end: in 1169, Manuel Komnenos' second wife Maria of Antioch gives birth to a girl, not a boy (OTLs Alexios II).

Bela III (Bela Alexios) of the House of Arpad is still betrothed to Maria Komnene at this point and, in 1169, is still the Despotes, heir-designate to the throne. If Maria of Antioch does not give birth to a son in 1169, should we expect Bela-Alexios to succeed Manuel as Basileus?

Furthermore, when Stephan III of Hungary dies in 1172, would a Bela III who is still heir to the Komnenos crown go to Hungary to claim its crown while Manuel is still alive, or would he allow his younger brother Geza to reign as an ally or vassal? For more info on Bela III: http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/hunspir/hsp12.htm

Considering Bela's track record as King of Hungary from 1172-1196, he was an effective and diligent ruler. Manuel obviously saw this potential in him, and had forced his nobles to swear oaths to Bela and Maria in 1165 as heirs of the Empire.

I wonder what Manuel's course of action would be in 1172 when, still without a son and with Bela and his betrothed Maria Komnene as his heirs, the crown of Hungary becomes vacant....perhaps Manuel will then have Bela-Alexios and Maria formally wed once and for all in order to strengthen the Roman claim to Hungary. With Manuel having no son, is Bela-Alexios not the logical first choice as a successor due to his betrothal to Manuel's daughter Maria?
Click to expand...

This very idea was put forward by a member called Sassanid Saxon here a few years back. I believe he wrote a timeline based on this. It's probably still findable with a little searching.

Nice idea. If Alexios II is avoided, then Andronikos massacre of the Latins never happens, the Angeloi don't happen, the Bulgarian revolution doesn't happen, the third crusade debacle doesn't happen and the Fourth Crusade doesn't sack Constantinople.

The fate of Anatolia then becomes an interesting question.
 

Megas Doux

Indeed it appears that Bela-Alexios, reigning alongside Maria Komnene, would have been a far better heir than the nightmarish regency for Alexios II OTL. If Manuel has no son in 1169, I am wondering if this wouldn't push him to finally have Bela and Maria married, thus securing the Empire's future. If they are still merely betrothed with Bela and Maria as heirs designate in 1172, what happens to the Hungarian crown when Stephen III dies?

I would assume that the Hungarian nobility would not embrace Bela as a potential king if he is still the heir apparent of Byzantium....I also imagine that Manuel would see this as an opportunity to absorb Hungary under the aegis of his heir, Bale-Alexios.

Any thoughts?
 

Megas Doux

Perhaps Manuel would, discouraged by his wife's inability to produce a male heir, would use the opening of the Hungarian crown in 1172 as an opportunity for Bela-Alexios and Maria to marry and claim Hungary as a Byzantine dependency. Obviously Bela-Alexios would rule from Constantinople, and obviously many Hungarian lords would resist Manuel's attempt to claim the Hungarian crown once and for all. Keep in mind that in this scenario, Bela is the heir of Byzantium by oath in 1172...I can see this leading to Frederick Barbarossa interfering in Hungarian affairs as well.
 

Megas Doux

bump, anyone else thinks its likely that Bela succeeds to the Roman throne? Would the opening of the Hungarian throne in 1172 complicate this? Would the Hungarian clergy and elites refuse to offer the crown to the Byzantine heir?
 

DarkKayder

Megas Doux said:
Perhaps Manuel would, discouraged by his wife's inability to produce a male heir, would use the opening of the Hungarian crown in 1172 as an opportunity for Bela-Alexios and Maria to marry and claim Hungary as a Byzantine dependency. Obviously Bela-Alexios would rule from Constantinople, and obviously many Hungarian lords would resist Manuel's attempt to claim the Hungarian crown once and for all. Keep in mind that in this scenario, Bela is the heir of Byzantium by oath in 1172...I can see this leading to Frederick Barbarossa interfering in Hungarian affairs as well.
Click to expand...
Wasn't Hungary already a byzantine tributary during Manuel's reing? They lost significant territory un the Balkans and had to give Bela as a hostage, as well as pay yearly tribute.
 

RogueTraderEnthusiast

I think this is probably one of those "Oh sweet christmas yes" PoDs for the Romans in terms of long-term survival, assuming Bela inherits Hungary. Hungary is basically another Balkans or Anatolia, not in terms perhaps of population density (yet), but another base from which to operate from. Its security within a Roman sphere is "Is the Danube Friendly?, Secure the Carpathians, Secure the West, Secure the Prutha." Which works very well with a Roman Balkans as the Danube is friendly, and also is interested in securing its west, which is common with Hungary, and the Pruth serves as protection for them as well.

Basically, Roman Hungary can reduce its overall defensive concerns to working with the existing Roman strategies west and east, whilst strengthening the Carpathians. The entire idea of securing the Danube disappears for both parties, and suddenly they have freer hands to resolve long-term defensive problems. (i.e. fortifying the Carpathians, send forces to secure Anatolia, support Italy against the HRE, etc).

You take that ability to secure common concerns, and then secure Anatolia? Suddenly you have not just the Balkans, but in the long run the Balkans, Anatolia, and Hungary as major regions for the Empire to recruit forces from. Ignoring that we've more or less undone Manzikert, with the exception of those new Turkish settlers who could be converted, this is an Empire that can really flourish in the long term.
 

RogueTraderEnthusiast

Droman said:
Have to wonder if this leads to a Magyarization of the Empire or a Byzantization of Hungary.
Click to expand...

Not entirely sure either way to be honest.

Large areas in the Balkans are Slavic, including Croatia under Hungary, and a large part of Anatolia whilst Greek is no longer Roman and increasingly becoming more Turkified.

I think institutionally you're going to see Greek be the most important language, simply because its the language of the Roman capital, and I would expect Bela to integrate Hungary with the Roman system to make it easier, and as a way to destroy old rivals.

It should be noted - yeah, the Hungarians were Catholic, a lot of their subjects in the east were not. So whilst Bela-Alexios may well convert on his coronation, I reckon of the first (and least popular) acts he'd do is ensure Catholics are granted tolerance, and likewise for the Orthodox in Hungary.

The biggest issue with this tension IMO is the interaction of Catholic Italian traders with the Romans. Bela-Alexios is in a good position (if he chooses to), to ally with the cities of Dalmatia to have a counter to Italians and start rebuilding Roman naval power. Undermining and humbling the Venetians at the very least would serve him well, as any action to humble "arrogant Italians" would likely garner Roman support, whilst not alienating the Hungarians. Considering the total control he'd have over the Danube, you could even see some Hungarians be recruited as sailors for a new fleet. Plus, if I recall correctly Venice and Hungary never really got along. I can't see the Hungarian nobles being against having Venice become an outpost for their families.
 

Droman

Speaking of the Danube, it'd be interest if a Byzantine Hungary could weaponize the Danube as a trade network into Western Europe, avoiding traditional trade routes by sea dominated by the Italians.

As for the Byzantine and Hungarian nobility, you have to expect Bela to face opposition on both sides. I don't know much about Hungary, but dare I imagine that they were more feudal than the Romans? We might see a degradation of Byzantine society into feudalism regardless of the Angeloi or whoever, and that could affect the military against future Anatolian conflicts and future succession precedents.
 

RogueTraderEnthusiast

Droman said:
Speaking of the Danube, it'd be interest if a Byzantine Hungary could weaponize the Danube as a trade network into Western Europe, avoiding traditional trade routes by sea dominated by the Italians.

As for the Byzantine and Hungarian nobility, you have to expect Bela to face opposition on both sides. I don't know much about Hungary, but dare I imagine that they were more feudal than the Romans? We might see a degradation of Byzantine society into feudalism regardless of the Angeloi or whoever, and that could affect the military against future Anatolian conflicts and future succession precedents.
Click to expand...

Depends on what Bela does I suppose. He might prefer the idea of being able to appoint his heir, rather than having them have to fight for the throne like he did with Stephen (and lost). Replacing rebellious lords with new Strategoi (or Tábornok) could be appealing as it could give him a stronger standing army.

It really depends on which system he thinks is better.
 

Megas Doux

Considering that he has been educated in Constantinople, with Manuel's intention that rule the Empire from the Queen of Cities, for 9 years by the time that 1172 rolls around (Stephen's death) I am not sure if Bela-Alexios would be able to rule from Hungary. Perhaps Manuel would use Stephen's death as the signal to finally have Bela and Maria wed. He would then certainly try to claim the remainder of Hungary as a Byzantine realm.

What I expect would happen is that the Hungarian nobility and prelates, as they almost did in OTL, would raise Bela's younger brother to the throne as Geza III. Bela will be able to claim Dalmatia, Croatia, Bosnia and Sirmium tothe Empire for sure. But I see a tussle for the rule of the Hungarian capital. Historically Bela was able to be crowned but had to imprison Geza. I this scenario, wouldnt the Hungarian nobles be far less likely to accept him as King as he is the heir to Constantinople?

Even bigger; wouldn't the HRE intervene in support of Geza (likely through their vassals in Austria and Bohemia)?

Personally I can see Manuel and Bela-Alexios claiming all of Hungary they can from 1172-1180 (Manuel's death), but leaving Geza III as a vassal king of a Hungarian rump state.
 

RogueTraderEnthusiast

Megas Doux said:
Considering that he has been educated in Constantinople, with Manuel's intention that rule the Empire from the Queen of Cities, for 9 years by the time that 1172 rolls around (Stephen's death) I am not sure if Bela-Alexios would be able to rule from Hungary. Perhaps Manuel would use Stephen's death as the signal to finally have Bela and Maria wed. He would then certainly try to claim the remainder of Hungary as a Byzantine realm.

What I expect would happen is that the Hungarian nobility and prelates, as they almost did in OTL, would raise Bela's younger brother to the throne as Geza III. Bela will be able to claim Dalmatia, Croatia, Bosnia and Sirmium tothe Empire for sure. But I see a tussle for the rule of the Hungarian capital. Historically Bela was able to be crowned but had to imprison Geza. I this scenario, wouldnt the Hungarian nobles be far less likely to accept him as King as he is the heir to Constantinople?

Even bigger; wouldn't the HRE intervene in support of Geza (likely through their vassals in Austria and Bohemia)?

Personally I can see Manuel and Bela-Alexios claiming all of Hungary they can from 1172-1180 (Manuel's death), but leaving Geza III as a vassal king of a Hungarian rump state.
Click to expand...

I honestly reckon he'd be more than willing to bludgeon the nobles to pieces rather than give Geza a square foot of land - especially after his attempt to take the throne previously.

I'd be more concerned about the HRE than the Hungarian nobility if it came to war however. But I suppose it depends on when Manuel dies vs Stephen. If Stephen dies first, then Bela is probably already on the throne, or has already fought for it with Geza, in a war less likely to see HRE involvement. Conversely, if he is the Emperor first, then inherits, then there is a risk there.

However, it depends on whether or not he opens with Integration. I reckon the best approach would be to respect the nobles rights for the first part of his reign, and ensure that an Imperial force could rapidly get to the Hungarian capital from Belgrade. We do have to remember that the Hungarians IOTL did come to the Romans to bring Bela to court - whether that was because they thought he was powerful, or they had no interest in conflict is a valid concern, but I think this indicates a willingness to accept rule from Constantinople, as long as they're free to do what they need, giving Bela time to sort out his rule from Constantinople in either scenario.
 
Marc

Marc

Donor
I think the fatal flaw in this construct is the idea that the dynatoi - the aristocratic Byzantine elite, many with various close links to recent emperors, would accept Bela from the get-go. Keep in mind, there is no automatic inheritance by blood or marriage in the Byzantine empire; their sensibilities are from Old Rome, with still an abiding prejudice about monarchy.

Oh yes, and religion does really matter a lot back then - any analysis that fails to be take that in to consideration is seriously damaged.
 

thestickfigure

Marc said:
I think the fatal flaw in this construct is the idea that the dynatoi - the aristocratic Byzantine elite, many with various close links to recent emperors, would accept Bela from the get-go. Keep in mind, there is no automatic inheritance by blood or marriage in the Byzantine empire; their sensibilities are from Old Rome, with still an abiding prejudice about monarchy.

Oh yes, and religion does really matter a lot back then - any analysis that fails to be take that in to consideration is seriously damaged.
Click to expand...
Which makes it extremely unlikely that Bela would remain a Catholic in Byzantium, especially when it is confirmed that he could become Emperor.
 

Wendell

Maybe we see a situation in which the court language is Greek, but the military language is Magyar? Or, is this early enough for Latin to regain ground as a courtly language?
 

Deleted member 67076

I wonder if the Byzantines can use the Hungarian nobles (seconds sons mostly) as sort of conquistadors to augment the army on Anatolia and the vassalized Kingdom of Jerusalem. Hungarian heavy cavalry vs Turkish light cavalry sounds like it would be a fun match.

Meanwhile the Hungarian administration will get a big boost from the Greek bureaucrats on rotation up north.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top