Best way for Alexios and/or David of Trebizond to become emperor?

Title says all. I've come down with another case of what I like to call Komnenophilia.

Basically, I can see two scenarios where Alexios Megas Komnenos (the first Emperor of Trebizond) and/or David Megas Komnenos (his brother) eventually become Eastern Roman Emperor:

1. Their grandfather, Andronikos I Komnenos, manages to reign in his cruelty and paranoia (Unless I'm mistaken, these traits are only mentioned after he became emperor) and stays on the throne. He dies and is succeeded by his eldest son, Manuel, then Manuel II dies and is succeeded by either of his sons.

2. The revolt of John 'the Fat', son of Alexios Axouch and possible father of Theodora Axuchina (Alexios I of Trebizond's OTL wife) successfully dethrones Alexios III Angelos. John 'the Fat' becomes John III and, presumably having no sons, marries Theodora to either of the brothers, designating them as his heirs.

Any thoughts?
 
#1, if you figure out how to do that, seems plausible. #2 seems unlikely.

But I'm not sure what turned Andronicus from seemingly sane, if possibly ruthless, to batshit insane.
 
#1, if you figure out how to do that, seems plausible. #2 seems unlikely.

But I'm not sure what turned Andronicus from seemingly sane, if possibly ruthless, to batshit insane.

How does #2 seem unlikely to you?

From what I've read, one of the reasons the revolt failed was because John himself took no decisive action after gaining the throne. Perhaps if one of his aristocratic supporters - Alexios Doukas Mourtzouphlos or the Komnenoi brothers - took decisive action instead. David Komnenos was said to be an active commander.

What factors would be required for it to be successful? Patriarch John X acknowledging John the Fat as emperor instead of hiding in a cupboard? Bribing the Varangian and Macedonian guards?

And then, I suppose there would be other factors to take into account. Alexios III's sons-in-law, Alexios Palaiologos and Theodore Laskaris, Isaac II and his sons and the Fourth Crusaders.

As for Andronikos, maybe a combination of realising the true pressures of being emperor and his purge of Manuel's family helped drive him over the edge. I'm just speculating though.
 
How does #2 seem unlikely to you?

From what I've read, one of the reasons the revolt failed was because John himself took no decisive action after gaining the throne. Perhaps if one of his aristocratic supporters - Alexios Doukas Mourtzouphlos or the Komnenoi brothers - took decisive action instead. David Komnenos was said to be an active commander.

What factors would be required for it to be successful? Patriarch John X acknowledging John the Fat as emperor instead of hiding in a cupboard? Bribing the Varangian and Macedonian guards?

And then, I suppose there would be other factors to take into account. Alexios III's sons-in-law, Alexios Palaiologos and Theodore Laskaris, Isaac II and his sons and the Fourth Crusaders.

As for Andronikos, maybe a combination of realising the true pressures of being emperor and his purge of Manuel's family helped drive him over the edge. I'm just speculating though.

Nope it had to do with the age old struggle between the emperor and the aristocracy more specifically the civil aristocracy. Basically since Nikephors Phokas the emperor had to be strong to reign in the aristocracy who had their own views and were basically against any form of centralization.
Their was a reason basil fought so long against the aristocrats it was because of this reason that he tried centralizing the state and the nobles did not like it. Now during the komnenoi period with the introduction of the vardatoi system the aristocracy gained power they had not had before. In fat by manuels time the aristocracy had basically become a far more deadly force to be reckoned with then it was under Basil given Manuel adopted many of the feudal customs of his western European counterparts.
Andronicus was a man who wished to centralize the state and curb the power of the aristocracy and try to create a more fair society at least in his eyes. However after putting down revolts he became paranoid. He thought that due to his policies his rivals would try to assaisnate him and fearing huge revolts he began a process of ending that which felt threatened his grand plaans of centralizing the byzantine state under one emperor. He failed spectaluarly for by killing so many nobles he alienated many others and this in turn lead to the chain of events which further spriraled his paranoia and leading to his eventual dreadful end and the seizing of the throne by the shitty Angelii who by the way only got the throne because
1. They were powerful civil aristocrats
2. Because they planned to decentralize the byzantine state and put power back in the hands of the nobles not the Emperor.
 
Nope it had to do with the age old struggle between the emperor and the aristocracy more specifically the civil aristocracy. Basically since Nikephors Phokas the emperor had to be strong to reign in the aristocracy who had their own views and were basically against any form of centralization.
Their was a reason basil fought so long against the aristocrats it was because of this reason that he tried centralizing the state and the nobles did not like it. Now during the komnenoi period with the introduction of the vardatoi system the aristocracy gained power they had not had before. In fat by manuels time the aristocracy had basically become a far more deadly force to be reckoned with then it was under Basil given Manuel adopted many of the feudal customs of his western European counterparts.
Andronicus was a man who wished to centralize the state and curb the power of the aristocracy and try to create a more fair society at least in his eyes. However after putting down revolts he became paranoid. He thought that due to his policies his rivals would try to assaisnate him and fearing huge revolts he began a process of ending that which felt threatened his grand plaans of centralizing the byzantine state under one emperor. He failed spectaluarly for by killing so many nobles he alienated many others and this in turn lead to the chain of events which further spriraled his paranoia and leading to his eventual dreadful end and the seizing of the throne by the shitty Angelii who by the way only got the throne because
1. They were powerful civil aristocrats
2. Because they planned to decentralize the byzantine state and put power back in the hands of the nobles not the Emperor.

Ah, I understand the situation a bit better now. Thank you.
 
To be honest, I have a slight preference for the second option. This hypothetical John III 'the Fat' wouldn't have to rule for long, just long enough to hypothetically marry his daughter to connect himself to the prestigious Komnenos dynasty (again). It's hard to say how well he would rule since we know so little about him. He would have at least a few competent commanders under him like Theodore Laskaris, David Komnenos, Michael Komnenos Doukas and Leo Sgouros.

In isolated Trebizond at least, the Komnenoi brothers managed to establish a dynasty that lasted around 257 years. Whether they would have similar success in Constantinople, I'm not sure.

Speaking of which, I am slightly confused as to the brothers and their relationship to the Angelos dynasty. When Isaac II took the throne, he had their grandfather tortured and killed and their father blinded (not sure when and how their mother, Rusudan, died). Supposedly, they fled to Georgia and were raised in the court of their aunt, Queen Tamar. Then, 15 years later, they're back (?) in Constantinople, supporting John the Fat and Alexios Doukas Mourtzouphlos and flee to Georgia again when the revolt fails. Then they seize control of the Trebizond and the Black Sea coast just before the crusaders sack Constantinople.

One thing that did surprise me when reading about this was that anyone stood up for Alexios III at all. Against opponents like the Fourth crusaders it's understandable, but, by the time of this revolt, Alexios had been ruling incompetantly for nearly 6 years. Then again, Isaac II was on the throne for 10 years before anyone thought to do something about him.

I have... mixed feelings on Isaac II. He overthrew Andronikos I, by then a paranoid, bloodthirsty tyrant, and, unlike his brother, at least tried to do something about the Bulgarians. Then again, it was his taxation of and attitude towards the Bulgarians that got him that situation in the first place.

...I'll stop now.
 
How does #2 seem unlikely to you?

Why the grandsons of Andronicus as opposed to someone with more standing? Yes, the dynastic name has some prestige, but they themselves do not.

As for Andronikos, maybe a combination of realising the true pressures of being emperor and his purge of Manuel's family helped drive him over the edge. I'm just speculating though.

Could be. His attitude seems to have worsened with time, and its impossible to tell whether it was true paranoia (as in, a medical condition) or desperation - frankly, someone with his policies did have enemies a plenty, and the fact his response generated still more built up until we get Isaac II.

Who seems to be out of his depth as Emperor, and less than concerned about the consequences of selling offices - but otherwise more mediocre than awful.

That's a good enough sum up for this thread.
 
Speaking of which, I am slightly confused as to the brothers and their relationship to the Angelos dynasty. When Isaac II took the throne, he had their grandfather tortured and killed and their father blinded (not sure when and how their mother, Rusudan, died). Supposedly, they fled to Georgia and were raised in the court of their aunt, Queen Tamar. Then, 15 years later, they're back (?) in Constantinople, supporting John the Fat and Alexios Doukas Mourtzouphlos and flee to Georgia again when the revolt fails. Then they seize control of the Trebizond and the Black Sea coast just before the crusaders sack Constantinople.

Actually, the mother of David and Alexios probably was not a Georgian princess. This hypothesis comes from a misreading of Panaretos, who called Queen Tamar the pros patros theia of the two brothers. This is translated as 'paternal aunt'; later historians assumed this was a mistake and 'corrected' it to maternal aunt, making David and Alexios' mother Tamar's sister.

But as shown by the research of Rafal Prinke, the connection to the Georgian royal house really DID come from their paternal side -- the mother of the emperor Andronikos I was Kata of Georgia, daughter of David the Builder. During his years of exile Andronikos visited the court of Queen Tamar's father, Georgi (who was his cousin).
 
Actually, the mother of David and Alexios probably was not a Georgian princess. This hypothesis comes from a misreading of Panaretos, who called Queen Tamar the pros patros theia of the two brothers. This is translated as 'paternal aunt'; later historians assumed this was a mistake and 'corrected' it to maternal aunt, making David and Alexios' mother Tamar's sister.

But as shown by the research of Rafal Prinke, the connection to the Georgian royal house really DID come from their paternal side -- the mother of the emperor Andronikos I was Kata of Georgia, daughter of David the Builder. During his years of exile Andronikos visited the court of Queen Tamar's father, Georgi (who was his cousin).

Ah, I see. Thanks. Guess I'll have to change that little detail in my latest ATL.
 
Top