Isaac Komnenos as John II's heir.

If John II avoids his hunting accident and subsequent death in 1143 in the mountains of Cilicia and if his eldest surviving son (Isaac Komnenos) is present at his fathers' later death, would he have a better chance of being chosen as the heir to the Komnenian Empire? The more I read about it, the more I think it ended up being an odd assemblage of events that led to John's younger son (Manuel I OTL) ascending to the throne of Constantine. Manuel was lucky enough to be present in his father's army at the moment of his death, and was also close to the "Latins" who championed his cause against that of Isaac.

If John lives longer, and if he leaves Manuel in Cilicia as his commander in the East alongside the Prince of Antioch and Count of Edessa (as John intended OTL), I believe Isaac would have become Basileus

What do the esteemed Byzantinists of the board think?
 
Ok then: How about this for for a Komnenian TL outline:


1143: No hunting accident for John, Cilicia and Antioch are reduced to vassalage.

1143-47: John's camapigns in Anatolia and Syria continue, Zengi's conquest of Edessa is delayed due to an attack by John on Aleppo.

1147-50: John's wars against the Sicilians and Hungarians alongside his son's Isaac and Manuel, as well as John Axouch the Megas Domestikos, though the Sicilians and Hungarians are eventually defeated, Zengi's heir, Nur ed-Din captures Edessa in 1148, triggering the 2nd Crusade.

1150: John dies at age 60, Isaac is present this time at his father's death bed, and with the support of Axouch, is proclaimed Basileus in the Queen of Cities.

1150-52: The 2nd Crusade passes through the Balkans and Anatolia....
 
Top