Byzantine Hungarian Union

If Bela III (Bela Alexios) of the House of Arpad marries Maria Komnene and succeeded to the throne of Constantinople after Manuel's death in 1180 (assuming OTL's Alexios II is not born to Maria of Antioch), would he be a Catholic or an Orthodox emperor? Was he required to convert in order to be Manuel's heir?

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 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


I'm doing some further research for my TL "AIMA" that involves Bela-Alexios as Basileus after 1180 and would love your opinions!
 

Dirk

Banned
Isn't the Byzantine crown pretty unstable at this point in time, with regents and fathers-in-law regularly snatching the throne left and right? For a king of Hungary to enforce union with Byzantium means that he must be able to project his power there, which is unlikely seeing that the Hungarians had yet to subdue the Serbs, Bulgarians, and Wallachians, whose territory lay in the way of Thrace.

Not to mention that the overwhelmingly Greek subjects of the Empire would hate the barbarian emperor and seize any opportunity to rid themselves of him.
 
This is also the subject of my first post in AH.com but got cold feet by the lack of reply:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=292739

In OTL, Manuel I Komnenos created the title "despotes" for the would-be Bela III of Hungary to designate him as his successor and planned to marry his daughter Maria to him. But when Alexios II was born, this arrangement was cancelled but Manuel helped Bela claim the throne of Hungary later.

Now what if Alexios II was never born and the arrangement went as planned? Would Manuel help Bela claim the Crown of Saint Stephen? Would Bela rule by his own right or only as a co-emperor with Maria like the case of Zoe?

And what would the Christian world reacts to a Hungarian-Byzantine union? Would they abhor a superpower appearing or be somewhat glad to have a strong ally to back the Crusades?

Also, what about the Schism? Although the two parts of Bela's(or confusingly, the TTL Alexios II) realm would have different religions, the Catholic-Orthodox relation was warm back then and there was an attempt to mend the Schism during Manuel's reign, now, would Bela be able to unite the two churches?
 
It is a fantastic TL idea sir! Did you think Manuel would help Bela-Alexios claim the Hungarian crown while being heir to Rhomania? Or would Manuel prefer to keep him in Constantinople in preparation for his role as Emperor? Would he have to be Orthodox in order to rule?
 
I remember seeing an ATL a long time ago on stardestroyer.net that had that as a premise. I got the entire idea of the War of the Five Emperors, including the setup, for Age of Miracles from it.

If Bela (who really needs to go by Alexios in this scenario) wants to rule in Constantinople he needs to be Orthodox. IOTL in 1182 there was a huge anti-Latin pogrom in Constantinople.

Part of the strong reaction against Latins was that Manuel I was viewed (rightly or wrongly) as being way too partial to them. If Alexios/Bela presents himself as more Greek, using his wife as a public front, and tells the Italians exactly where they can shove it (something that would cheer the Hungarians too who are dueling with Venice over control off Dalmatia), he has a good chance of weathering any anti-barbarian sentiment providing Andronikos Komnenos doesn't get going. He will make a grab for the throne.

Better military successes against the Normans and Turks, and removing the cause for the Bulgarian revolt, will greatly improve Rhomania's prospects compared to OTL. The quarter century of incompetence, stupidity, and instability after Manuel's death is what made 1204 possible.
 
Thanks Basileus! Your TL has been a big inspiration for mine and I have read the TL on StarDestroyer as well. If Alexios is Manuel's obvious heir by say...the 1170s, is it safe to assume he would have converted to Orthodoxy?

Would he be allowed to claim the Hungarian throne before coming to the Roman throne, or would it be more realistic for him to allow his brother Geza to rule there as an ally?

Yes, in my TL Alexios II has converted to Orthodoxy as Manuel never produced a male heir, but I had him stay in Constantinople even after Stephan III of Hungary's death in 1172.
 
Furthermore, if (Bela) Alexios II is Manuel's heir in 1180 alongside his wife Maria and is Orthodox (in order to rule his Roman realm) would the Hungarian magnates not welcome an "absentee" King? I suspect Alexios would focus focus upon being the rightful Orthodox Basileus of Byzantium and would not spend much time in Hungary. Is that a good assumption?


I'm also interested in Bela-Alexios furthering his Father in law's attempts at Church Union.
 
Bump :)

Overall though, if Alexios II is not born to Manuel in 1169, is it realistic to expect that Bela, as Alexios II, would be crowned Roman Emperor in 1180?

Could he have been crowned King of Hungary in 1172 or would his position as Manuel's heir have made him unattractive to the Hungarian magnates?

Would Manuel have kept him close and in Constantinople in such a case, wanting him to succeed him as Orthodox Basileus?
 
Top