What if, around 1300 AD, Byzantium had a royal intermarriage with Aragon? Could this have saved them, both militarily and diplomatically? What are your guys's opinions?
There were actually attempts at this prior to the 1300s. Manuel Komnenos sent his grand-niece, Eudokia Komnenos, to marry either Alfonso II of Aragon or his younger brother Raymond Berengar V, count of Provence as a means of countering Frederick Barbarossa's influence. And before her father's death, Eudokia Laskaris was promised to Peter III of Aragon, then Michael Palaiologos took over and married her off to an obscure Italian count.
I find the idea of a d'Aragon managing to rule the Romans - if such an event happened, I wonder where they would rule from, Napoli/Sicily rather than Constantinople or Barcelona? I would expect as much until they'd managed to secure the regions near Constantinople - if they could.
Theyd probably split the kingdoms. No one in Romania would accept being ruled away from the imperial capital.
The ERE by this time is an entirely different place compared to the days of Augustus or even Heraclius.Governing away from Constantinople really isn't an option given Constantinople is very much what makes up the ERE at this point spiritually and administratively(what I mean is that it is THE CITY,it was a greater spiritual capital than Rome ever was),especially with the emperor being a foreign 'barbarian' and a Catholic.Well, apart from the difficulties in convincing the Romans that the Emperor can move the capital where he wishes (yeah, I know, nightmarish, difficult, lets not go there), what if there was the Emperor (King of Aragon) and a co-emperor/kaiser who was the heir, and ruled in Constantinople?
Although, I'm not so sure this is a problem, it isn't unprecedented for Emperors not to rule from the imperial capital. If the Romans are kept safe, and strong - then they should be fine.
The only issue with Aragon is that any union needs to happen before 1356 - and they make sure to control Gallipoli. Aragon is a naval power, if the Ottomans can cross the water, then the Aragonese would need stronger allies in the region, or much more manpower/money to deal with the problem - a strong Aragonese fleet in Constantinople, and strong forts controlling the Bosphoros and Dardanelles, at least on the European side, would be the most sound solution for the Aragonese Emperors (to give them a name). Until such point that they have dominance of the Balkans, enough so that they can use just the Roman Army to fight the Ottomans.
I actually like the Aragonese heir being Kaiser, it'd create the interesting dynamic where the King is in Barcelona for the first generation, but his heir may prefer to rule from Constantinople. With control of access to the Black Sea and its trade, Aragon could set itself up as the premier Mediterranean naval power, and beat back the pirates, and take over places like Cyprus, and maybe even bring the Knights of Rhodes under their protection.
The ERE by this time is an entirely different place compared to the days of Augustus or even Heraclius.Governing away from Constantinople really isn't an option given Constantinople is very much what makes up the ERE at this point spiritually and administratively(what I mean is that it is THE CITY,it was a greater spiritual capital than Rome ever was),especially with the emperor being a foreign 'barbarian' and a Catholic.
Actually that does pose an interesting question.
If the King of Aragon is Emperor of the Romans (and as such has some power over the Patriarch of Constantinople) - are we likely to see a union of the churches? Or could Aragon go Orthodox so that it has greater power over its own church?