Byzantium battles back

I have to admit I've hit a dead end with the TL. I outsmarted myself with the POD and I'm going back to the drawing board and starting over with a new POD, one after the 4th Crusade and focused on the Empire of Nicaea and the house of Laskaris.

I can't say for sure if this thread will return but I haven't forgotten about it.
 
Last edited:
plantagenet said:
I have to admit I've hit a dead end with the TL. I outsmarted myself with the POD and I'm going back to the drawing board and starting over with a new POD, one after the 4th Crusade and focused on the Empire of Nicaea and the house of Laskaris.

I can't say for sure if this thread will return but I haven't forgotten about it.

I think that a TL with the POD after the 4th crusade will be more interesting , because it's harder to save Byzantium after 1204 than before.
Your TL was also interesting , BTW.
 
Andrei said:
I think that a TL with the POD after the 4th crusade will be more interesting , because it's harder to save Byzantium after 1204 than before.
Your TL was also interesting , BTW.

One option I've toyed with for this might be a Greek state, either Trebazon or Nicea accepting Mongol overlordship after they conquered the Turks in ~1260. This puts them on good terms with the Mongols and when Muslim revolts occur in Anatolia they both gain influence in helping suppress them and the Mongols become more hostile to Islam as a result. [Plus if you get their rivals in the Golden Horde still embracing Islam that would strengthen the trend].

You could even have the Ill-Khans toy with Christianity rather than Buddhism for a while. Probably leads to its collapse after repeated revolts. However with a bit of wise leadership the Greek state could end up with most of modern Greece and Anatolia. While the Muslim states in Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia and possibly Egypt if that falls in this scenario are improvished and depopulated by the frequent revolts and Mongol suppressions. [Think OTL Russia but possibly worse as the area is more heavily populated].

This would give a revived Byzantium a chance to establish itself and with wise leadership become a major power again. Bringing the feudal lords under control, reviving trade links under the empire's control, restoring agriculture, etc. Possibly even a rump Mongol Khanate in Syria which serves as a buffer for the empire there and provides very useful troops for fighting other opponents.

Steve
 

Keenir

Banned
stevep said:
One option I've toyed with for this might be a Greek state, either Trebazon or Nicea accepting Mongol overlordship after they conquered the Turks in ~1260. This puts them on good terms with the Mongols and when Muslim revolts occur in Anatolia they both gain influence in helping suppress them and the Mongols become more hostile to Islam as a result.

I'm not aware of the Mongols being hostile to Islam either during or after the eradication of the Old Man in the Mountain (the Assassins).
 
Well, they only eradicated several Muslim cities, and killed the Caliph, it's not that Islam didn't recover since then (seriously now: although one had to admit, those were the deeds of Hulagu, and his brother Berke [I think] who converted to Islam was NOT very happy about that).
 
I have come up with something I think I’ll add to the TL, though this may require some retroactive changes.

I have sought for a long time to increase the cultural and linguistic influence of Normandy on the development of France as a nation. After a few false starts, I have come up with an idea I think is worth pursuing and which has a window opened for it in this TL – the Norman conquest of France.

In the 1320s, the king of France names his third son Louis duke of Normandy; Louis is something of a troublemaker and his father, Charles IV, thinks to remove temptation by removing him from Paris. As long as Louis’ eldest brother, Philip V, is on the throne all is well – Philip rules well and he and Louis get on nicely. However, in 1340, shortly after the conquest of Guyenne from Edward II and before John of Chester’s coup, Philip dies suddenly, leaving the throne to the middle brother, Charles.

Charles is dissolute, violent, influenced by his Navarrese wife Elisabeth, not very intelligent and generally a bad king. But his wife, though a foreigner and possibly evil, is very smart and has assembled an inner circle of advisors of great ability if dubious scruples. She has also solidified the support of much of the nobility, though a sizable faction has gone into opposition, siding with the Duke of Normandy.

Louis of Normandy is physically small but powerful with a robust intellect and a strong loyalty to his brother. He hates Elisabeth, however, who reciprocates and leaves Charles in a bind – he loves his brother and wants to think well of him but his wife is constantly poisoning his mind against him until finally a breach is imminent.

Meanwhile, messengers have been sailing back and forth between England and Normandy, holding talks to secure Normandy against English raids should civil war break out. Louis is loyal to the crown, despite his mistreatment, but feels things are going too far in Paris and if action is not taken France herself could be in danger.

In 1343 John II and Louis conduct talks in person on the island of Jersey, itself once a part of Normandy; it is agreed that in the event swords are drawn England will remain neutral, the issue of active English support for Normandy being considered too sensitive to decide until the shit actually hits the fan.

In his years governing Normandy, Louis has all but created an independent kingdom of the Normans, working closely with local governing bodies - the Norman Estates et al. He is very popular, taking a Norman wife, mastering the Norman dialect and conducting business in it; the Normans feel like he is one of them. In 1345 a deputation of town leaders delivers a pledge that whatever happens Normandy will “live and die” with their Duke.

In September 1345, Queen Elisabeth decides Louis has become too powerful; he has several robust heirs while Charles has only one son who, though 15 years old, is not in the best health. She decides to eliminate the threat and persuades her husband Louis is plotting with the English to sever Normandy from France and place it under London’s suzerainty. Her power over her husband is proof against the absurdity of the claim and he summons his brother to Paris to answer the charges. The messenger bearing the summons dislikes the foreign queen and manages to secretly inform Louis of the queen's plot.

Louis responds by stalling for several months, but in the spring of 1346 he has run out of excuses and must simply refuse. He tells his brother plainly that he while he loves him and trusts him implicitly, there are wicked persons at his court who mean to harm the kingdom and the Duke.

By this time, however, Charles is inclined to suspect his own kin and orders him to attend or face the consequences. As the summer of 1346 opens the stage is set for civil war.
 
Last edited:

Keenir

Banned
I like the continuation of this ATL....though I have one question.

plantagenet said:
I have come up with something I think I’ll add to the TL, though this may require some retroactive changes.


In September 1345, Queen Elisabeth decides Louis has become too powerful; he has an English duchess and several sons while Charles has only one son who, though 15 years old, is not in the best health. She determines to eliminate the threat and persuades her husband Louis is plotting with the English to sever Normandy from France and place it under London’s suzerainty. Her power over her husband is proof against the absurdity of the claim

Not really -- just because he listens to her, doesn't mean there's nothing to the charges.....you just said Louis has multiple sons and an English lady. Not a French lady, but an English one.

...and the Norman nobles have outright said they'd fight the King of France if it came down to it.


and he summons his brother to Paris to answer the charges. The messenger bearing the summons, however, was once tortured on the orders of the queen for allegedly fraternizing with one of her ladies-in-waiting and his sympathies lie with the queen’s enemies;

why would such a person be entrusted with matters of state? (even just relaying them)



other than that, this is wonderful....please continue.
 
You have a good point about the messenger; I removed the bit about the torture, though he still blows the whistle.

I thought about the interpretations of Louis' behaviour - his English contacts, the foreign wife I gave him, etc. - and decided to get rid of that stuff, too. Instead of an alliance, Louis seeks English neutrality; I also think if he is going to be a champion of France, Louis ought to have a Norman wife.
 
Keenir said:
I'm not aware of the Mongols being hostile to Islam either during or after the eradication of the Old Man in the Mountain (the Assassins).

Keenir

Sorry about the slow reply but obviously missed your question.

Apart from the standard hostility from any mono-deistic religion and the points Max mentioned, when Hulagu's forces stormed through Iran, Iraq and Syria they did have a significant proportion of eastern Christians in their midst. Some suggestion that many of those had joined up to get back for centuries of Muslim domination while others came from the Mongol heartland’s. I think I remember reading that both Hulagu's favourite wife and the commander of the rearguard defeated in 1260 at Ain Jalut were Nertorians or other eastern Christian. This added some religious tension to the mix although the Mongols were generally fairly tolerant. [They just killed everybody who opposed them!] The Ilk-Khans who rules the successor state were formally Buddhist for about 30 years or so before finally converting to Islam about 1290 I think.

Steve
 
Most of the Il-Khans had Nestorian Christian mothers--the Kereits, one of the horse tribes from Mongolia, were largely Nestorian, and provided lots of wives for Mongol leaders.

I think perhaps one of the Il-Khans was a Christian, but that had little impact.
 
On 1 June 1346 the realm is gripped by a national tragedy when the king and his heir are both killed in a fire in Tours; the prince manages to escape instant death but is badly burned. His burns infect and several weeks later after suffering great agony, he dies; those at his side count his end a mercy. This leaves France temporarily without a king.

Bereft of a figurehead, the queen’s faction is plunged into chaos and those nobles who oppose her and her favorites seize their chance, inviting the Duke of Normandy to come to Paris to assume his throne as King Louis X. This he does, at the head of a Norman army and with a swarm of Norman clerks who assume many government offices in Paris.

This swift ascent of the Normans wears on some Frenchmen but Louis proves an adept king, moving to reverse the abuses of the queen’s faction and repealing some of the more egregious legislative atrocities. Elisabeth herself is permitted to enter a convent in Anjou but a number of her cronies find less lenience at the hands of the new king. [NB: My knowledge of the French nobility is spotty so I am not going to try to name the “corrupt associates” as I would for England.]

Louis’ policies make him friends among townsfolk and friendly nobles and he even wins over some his former opponents among the second estate; the Church supports him, also. Still, his troubles aren’t over and as 1348 dawns it begins to look like war will happen after all. To wit, rumors begin to swirl in the countryside that Prince Philip is alive after all, having survived his wounds from Tours and gone into hiding to recover. Now, they say, he is fully recovered and seeks to regain his throne. It is unknown to what extent anyone really believes it but it provides a focus for discontent against the Norman regime. “Philip VI” is acclaimed by a group of disaffect nobles in Clermont on 12 July 1348; this despite the plague raging across Europe.

The rebellion gathers steam throughout the year; uncharacteristically, Louis X ignores the nascent rebellion as he personally does not doubt for a minute that his nephew is deceased and therefore that the rebellion will collapse on itself in short order. By early 1349, however, it has become clear he was mistaken after Bayonne surrenders to a rebel force. Support for the insurgency is mostly found in the southern provinces, the places most dissatisfied with the Norman presence in Paris. Prince Robert, his father’s successor as Duke of Normandy, that now being the traditional position of the heir-apparent, assembles an army and marches against the rebels in May ’49. There are many Normans in this army but all the northern provinces are represented and hopes are high the rebels will be destroyed easily.

One thing Louis brings with him from Rouen is the Norman dialect, which over the next few decades will wholly supplant Francien as the language of administration and, ultimately, as lingua franca of France.

Robert is able to force battle with the rebels in June but despite defeating them he is unable to destroy their army, which means more battles must be fought. However, the pretender and his lieutenants realize an open field battle would be suicide so they rely on sieges to delay the royal army in hopes of buying time to negotiate foreign aid. This aid never comes and by the end of 1350 the rebels are reduced to a small handful of fortified places.

Through a rebel deserter Robert discovers the pretender’s residence and catches the young man by surprise, encircling the castle before he can escape; after a fortnight in which the garrison is reduced to great extremities and nearly runs out of food, they resolve to try a breakout. This fails but the defenders withdraw in good order and show that taking the castle by storm will be costly. “Philip,” whose real name turns out to be Walter, parleys with Robert and seeks terms of surrender. Robert promises if he surrenders no one in his army will do him any harm.

Thinking the promise is valid, Philip surrenders to Robert; he is treated well enough on the way back to Paris but upon arrival is handed over to the king’s agents, who take him away to be tried. After a show trial, Walter is executed publicly; Robert and his father preside over the killing and the condemned’s last words are a rebuke to Robert for breaking his promise; Robert coolly replies he kept his promise – the executioner was not present when Robert agreed not to harm him. He advises Walter to listen more carefully to future promises of safety.
 

Keenir

Banned
all is good, all is well; looking forwards to more.

plantagenet said:
On 1 June 1346 the realm is gripped by a national tragedy when the king and his heir are both killed in a fire in Tours; the prince manages to escape instant death but is badly burned. His burns infect and several weeks later after suffering great agony, he dies; those at his side count his end a mercy. This leaves France temporarily without a king.

Bereft of a figurehead, the queen’s faction is plunged into chaos

don't they still have the queen? I'm not sure if France allows\allowed Queens ruling until the male heir was old enough to take the throne....were they?

and those nobles who oppose her and her favorites seize their chance, inviting the Duke of Normandy to come to Paris to assume his throne as King Louis X. This he does, at the head of a Norman army and with a swarm of Norman clerks who assume many government offices in Paris.

...putting many people out of work, as the Normans take all the jobs.


This swift ascent of the Normans wears on some Frenchmen but Louis proves an adept king,

Louis’ policies make him friends among townsfolk and friendly nobles

did he cut down on how "Norman" he is\behaves?

and he even wins over some his former opponents among the second estate;

what'd he have to do\promise to win them over?


By early 1349, however, it has become clear he was mistaken after Bayonne surrenders to a rebel force. Support for the insurgency is mostly found in the southern provinces, the places most dissatisfied with the Norman presence in Paris.

could Louis X take advantage of the fact that these are traditionally Cathar regions?

However, the pretender and his lieutenants realize an open field battle would be suicide so they rely on sieges to delay the royal army in hopes of buying time to negotiate foreign aid.

from who?

condemned’s last words are a rebuke to Robert for breaking his promise; Robert coolly replies he kept his promise – the executioner was not present when Robert agreed not to harm him. He advises Walter to listen more carefully to future promises of safety.

then any future promises from Robert are utterly worthless.
 
I surely hate to do this but I just realized I explicitly stated that Philip V, Louis’ and Charles’ elder brother, was a strong, good, well-liked king who was close with Louis. The point is that Philip dies in early winter 1340 and only five years later, in 1345, Charles and Louis are on the verge of open conflict and Charles is allegedly destroying the realm. The problem is that I was patterning the Norman “conquest” on the OTL Wars of the Roses with Charles being a twisted version of Henry VI, Elisabeth of Navarre being Marguerite d’Anjou and Louis of Normandy being Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York.

All well and good but recall that in OTL it took 20 years for York to be stirred to open rebellion and he didn't have a virtually sovereign duchy to fall back on; I don’t think the timing works on my thing and there are other problems I won’t go into here.

Here’s a new idea – Charles is a decent king, gets on with his brother pretty well, but is sterile, the result of a terrible accident as a young man on a hunt. He and Elisabeth have a loving marriage but no children; the queen is beloved by her people for her generosity and charitable works. There is no question that for want of royal sons, Louis of Normandy will succeed his brother. He succeeds in 1345 following his brother’s tragic death in a riding accident but his own reign is short-lived – he dies himself from the plague in 1349 and is succeeded by his half-Norman son Robert, who begins nudging the realm toward Norman things like language but doesn’t bring in a horde of Norman carpetbaggers to Paris.
 

Keenir

Banned
plantagenet said:
I surely hate to do this but I just realized I explicitly stated that Philip V, Louis’ and Charles’ elder brother, was a strong, good, well-liked king who was close with Louis. The point is that Philip dies in early winter 1340 and only five years later, in 1345, Charles and Louis are on the verge of open conflict and Charles is allegedly destroying the realm. The problem is that I was patterning the Norman “conquest” on the OTL Wars of the Roses with Charles being a twisted version of Henry VI, Elisabeth of Navarre being Marguerite d’Anjou and Louis of Normandy being Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York.

oh.

I didn't know that.
(I kid you not)


All well and good but recall that in OTL it took 20 years for York to be stirred to open rebellion and he didn't have a virtually sovereign duchy to fall back on; I don’t think the timing works on my thing

practice makes perfect.

I'm still learning that myself.

Here’s a new idea – Charles is a decent king, gets on with his brother pretty well, but is sterile, the result of a terrible accident as a young man on a hunt.

*nods* these things happen.

He and Elisabeth have a loving marriage but no children; the queen is beloved by her people for her generosity and charitable works. There is no question that for want of royal sons, Louis of Normandy will succeed his brother. He succeeds in 1345 following his brother’s tragic death in a riding accident but his own reign is short-lived – he dies himself from the plague in 1349 and is succeeded by his half-Norman son Robert, who begins nudging the realm toward Norman things like language but doesn’t bring in a horde of Norman carpetbaggers to Paris.

very nice.

that works too.

(and both Robert & Louis will very likely have more popular acclaim with the French nobility & people, thanks to the absence of carpetbaggers).
 
Top