Isaac's Empire 2.0

Just...more or less...caught up with this after my prolonged break.

Alexius leaving the fate of the Empire in God's hands?

It's so Byzantine it hurts, BG. :D

I'm not sure it's likely - others can argue that one - but its the kind of thing a Rhomanian basileus would do if convinced God would solve everything.

And given that even if Alexius did spell out an heir, that doesn't mean that the powers that matter necessarily accept that . . . I think we should just pray for boring times in the near future.
Byzantine Emperors were pious but not...Jesus freaks;those who were,are those who retired in monasteries.
The powers that mattered Elfwine usually accepted the emperor's choice,or so statistics tell us....
 
Byzantine Emperors were pious but not...Jesus freaks;those who were,are those who retired in monasteries.
The powers that mattered Elfwine usually accepted the emperor's choice,or so statistics tell us....

Was Philip II of Spain a Jesus freak? This is rather like the kind of trust-in-god he did, only with the succession instead of military campaigns like the Armada of '88.

Do all that's within your power, expect God to fill in the rest. Nevermind that the project was unrealistic to begin with.

Or in this case - God favors the Empire of the Romans, which means God will ensure the most worthy successor appears and is accepted.

And the powers that be usually acccepting the emperor's choice isn't the same thing as "Name your heir, and all is resolved". If the powers that matter don't like the chosen heir, spelling out that you'd prefer him in advance doesn't help very much.

I'm not saying Alexius's choice is wise or right. Just that it's the kind of faith-based unreason the Byzantines practiced.
 
Last edited:
My understanding was that 3rd and 4th marriages were fine?? Although, that's something I read years ago, and can't remember where.

Wiki says
which says 3 times is OK, but that's in the context of divorces... What happens when a wife dies (e.g. in childbirth)?

I specifically remember the oddity that in the West, you couldn't divorce at all, but could marry as often as possible (as long as the previous wives were e.g. dead), while in the East, you could get divorced, but if 4 wives died on you, you were SoL. (Of course, the dead wives would be even more so, but there you are.)
After her husband dies a woman can remarry,no restrictions.unless she has already been married three times.
Divorces:the church doesn't grand divorce 'per se',it registers the decision of the civil court;the church obeys the laws of the land;upon registration of the divorce(which is immediate) another marriage can follow.
 
Thoughts since update at post #161

Hi BG,

Sorry I've been away for several months - just got caught up with work, Christmas, family, friends, life etc etc.

I think IE 2.0 is developing very nicely so far - with a hugely impressive grasp of the detail of the characters and personalities in this age.

A couple of thoughts and comments on previous posts:

Basileus Giorgios said:
If Megas decided to submit his Gyorgy Horvath stories for publication

You are too kind to mention my scribblings of the last 2 years or so, but I've no plans to publish these. Besides, the story is not yet over: I half-wrote one more story months ago but have not managed to revisit it since - now the TL is being revamped I don't know when the stories will be relevant again (in the 1700s of IE 2.0)? :confused:

Basileus Giorgios said:
In 1.0, I had the renaissance kick-started earlier by the very ATL development of Italian politics in the twelfth century. I'll probably stay with that in 2.0.

I read with great interest the comments of Billy Shears on the last page of IE 1.0 and thought he made some excellent points about the development of a middle class and democracy in a Byzantine context.

I think Italy will be key to this process - because it will be distant from the capital in Constantinople and have a special political culture(s) of its own. I think the challenge will be how to develop a middle class inside imperial cities (say, in Italy) and keep those cities (a) both subservient to events at the heart of the Empire and (b) loyal to the Empire and in it for unbroken centuries...

In IE 1.0 there were several Italian republics which survive in a politically ossified form until the Psaras reforms of the late 17th century sweep them away. If that process is repeated in 2.0, it seems likely that a middle class both has to grow in Italy, then 'decline' in the various cities such as Genoa, Pisa and Venice, to end up as rigid oligarchies (or local democracies?) until the standardisation of the New Theme system under Psaras.

Basileus Giorgios said:
The Egyptians, supported by the Imperial navy and ships from the Italian vassals

Here, too, is another reason why you may have your burgeoning middle class starting in Italy: their role as naval auxiliaries (or better) to the Empire. Remember too, the instructive example of Ancient Athens: the men who traditionally provided the hoplite armies and 'knights' (hippeis) were aristocratic men of landed power who despised democracy and favoured oligarchy; it was the men of Athens' triumphant navies (the humble rowers in their tens of thousands) who were the lifeblood of the democracy during its Golden Age...

On Ares96's map: Very nice map there. Lemesos and Arsinoe were indeed the settlements then in existence on Cyprus. But Lemesos must be abandoned and refounded as Neo Kourion and Arsinoe as Nea Constantia sometime between the late 12th century and when the Battle of Cyprus happens in 1683. We have seen in a recent post that Arsinoe is raided (and destroyed?) by the Turks; but what about Lemesos?

BG: this may be an opportune time to think about how the Grand Duchy of Cyprus comes into existence. I described here what I thought would be a good date and a period when dynastic politics/the political realities get really tricky for the Empire in the eastern Mediterranean. Perhaps one idea may be to have dynamic Italians given Cyprus to settle and control, along with the first title of Megas Dux and unprecedented freedoms and economic liberties that exist nowhere else in the Empire? Perhaps Cyprus can be a 'testing ground' for the development of an imperial middle class: things are so successful that Constantinople takes fright and doesn't appoint another Grand Duke for hundreds of years... But the experiment is enough of a success to shore up the position of the Empire in the eastern Med between the early 13th century and the arrival of the Mongols...

What do you think?
 
Hi BG,

Sorry I've been away for several months - just got caught up with work, Christmas, family, friends, life etc etc.

I think IE 2.0 is developing very nicely so far - with a hugely impressive grasp of the detail of the characters and personalities in this age.

A couple of thoughts and comments on previous posts:



You are too kind to mention my scribblings of the last 2 years or so, but I've no plans to publish these. Besides, the story is not yet over: I half-wrote one more story months ago but have not managed to revisit it since - now the TL is being revamped I don't know when the stories will be relevant again (in the 1700s of IE 2.0)? :confused:



I read with great interest the comments of Billy Shears on the last page of IE 1.0 and thought he made some excellent points about the development of a middle class and democracy in a Byzantine context.

I think Italy will be key to this process - because it will be distant from the capital in Constantinople and have a special political culture(s) of its own. I think the challenge will be how to develop a middle class inside imperial cities (say, in Italy) and keep those cities (a) both subservient to events at the heart of the Empire and (b) loyal to the Empire and in it for unbroken centuries...

In IE 1.0 there were several Italian republics which survive in a politically ossified form until the Psaras reforms of the late 17th century sweep them away. If that process is repeated in 2.0, it seems likely that a middle class both has to grow in Italy, then 'decline' in the various cities such as Genoa, Pisa and Venice, to end up as rigid oligarchies (or local democracies?) until the standardisation of the New Theme system under Psaras.



Here, too, is another reason why you may have your burgeoning middle class starting in Italy: their role as naval auxiliaries (or better) to the Empire. Remember too, the instructive example of Ancient Athens: the men who traditionally provided the hoplite armies and 'knights' (hippeis) were aristocratic men of landed power who despised democracy and favoured oligarchy; it was the men of Athens' triumphant navies (the humble rowers in their tens of thousands) who were the lifeblood of the democracy during its Golden Age...

On Ares96's map: Very nice map there. Lemesos and Arsinoe were indeed the settlements then in existence on Cyprus. But Lemesos must be abandoned and refounded as Neo Kourion and Arsinoe as Nea Constantia sometime between the late 12th century and when the Battle of Cyprus happens in 1683. We have seen in a recent post that Arsinoe is raided (and destroyed?) by the Turks; but what about Lemesos?

BG: this may be an opportune time to think about how the Grand Duchy of Cyprus comes into existence. I described here what I thought would be a good date and a period when dynastic politics/the political realities get really tricky for the Empire in the eastern Mediterranean. Perhaps one idea may be to have dynamic Italians given Cyprus to settle and control, along with the first title of Megas Dux and unprecedented freedoms and economic liberties that exist nowhere else in the Empire? Perhaps Cyprus can be a 'testing ground' for the development of an imperial middle class: things are so successful that Constantinople takes fright and doesn't appoint another Grand Duke for hundreds of years... But the experiment is enough of a success to shore up the position of the Empire in the eastern Med between the early 13th century and the arrival of the Mongols...

What do you think?
I don't quite see the use of Italy in promoting middle class mentality and institutions more than Greece or the islands let'say.I believe that such a move has to start in the heart of the empire where it is easy to spread,rather than in Italy where it is in itself isolated.
 
Salghurid is a rather silly dynasty name as there are actual Salghurids in Fars which paid homage to the Seljuks as early as the 1100s.
 
Was Philip II of Spain a Jesus freak? This is rather like the kind of trust-in-god he did, only with the succession instead of military campaigns like the Armada of '88.

Do all that's within your power, expect God to fill in the rest. Nevermind that the project was unrealistic to begin with.

Or in this case - God favors the Empire of the Romans, which means God will ensure the most worthy successor appears and is accepted.

And the powers that be usually acccepting the emperor's choice isn't the same thing as "Name your heir, and all is resolved". If the powers that matter don't like the chosen heir, spelling out that you'd prefer him in advance doesn't help very much.

I'm not saying Alexius's choice is wise or right. Just that it's the kind of faith-based unreason the Byzantines practiced.
Phillip? and before all the way back to Ferdinard and Isabella? it takes at least a bunch of damned fanatics to create and expand such sick institution as the Holly Inquisition,which was at least...unholly...
 
Full disclosure: I am a big non-fan of the conserva-world that developed in the last TL, but I still enjoyed a lot of the last TL.

I read this a while ago, but I am finally getting around to posting notes, comments and critiques. Some of these are just thoughts that came to me while reading that I wrote down so they have a stream of consciousness effect. They're split up by post.

Chapter One:
-Really liked the idea of things being better because something worse happened right away.
-Are the failed 1060 harvests historical or alternate?
-To what extent are the imperial aristocracy capable of feuding against each other (esp. compared to the west) and to what extent are they bound to the empire?
-How did the riots almost kill the empress?
-Difference between a Theme and Duchy in the empire?
-Too bad about Norman Sicily, I rather like them.

Chapter Two:
-The first big issue pops up, the pig blood.
How are the Turks supposed to know it's pig blood? Why does it "seem likely" the Turks lose discipline? This seems like an implausible stereotype. Are there historical instances of this happening recorded (the Indian mutiny does not fit)?
-How does a known ally of the accuser get appointed judge? Did Isaac just want an excuse to kill him?
-Why trust new-baptized Turks? I understand marrying your men to their women, but the other way around seems more likely to end up with crypto-Muslims.

Chapter Three:
-Is the plague historical or just a random event?
-How does this slow pushing out (of Michael for Alexius) happen? I mean do people simply stop listening to him? I've always wondered how that worked, but I'm just curious.
-Shocked the Normans "unsurprisingly... collapsed" they're Normans, and you called them "Masters of Warfare." Also surprising they'd accept resettlement so far in the east especially when some of them are going to Serbia.

I'll follow up with the rest of the notes later. So far I am enjoying that there are more setbacks and sidesteps compared to the advances. Nicely done and I am enjoying it quite a bit despite my more pointed questions!
 
Second Post!

Chapter Four:
-How big was Alexios's army compared to Henry's?

Chapter Five:
-How does the system of German "pretenders" work? How could any of them get enough traction to rebel let alone four? I'm unfamiliar with the workings of the HRE.
-Ekbert... why does he love the east? Is this historical? It seems weird that when he's not secure of his own place he's sending aid to the eastern empire even if there's a marriage alliance. Also why wouldn't some other state give him a home as a useful tool against Henry?
-Is anyone important one of Henry's allies? I mean in terms of what they hold.
-They're really using the pope for target practice? I guess I just don't buy it.
-Oh btw, since Henry's at Milan.... What's Matilda been up to this entire time?
-How did Alexious pay for his new huge army? Italian campaigns are really expensive and he has no gains in the east to draw from.
-Ah, considering Michael's death I am reminded of something that happened in a Crusader Kings II AAR playing Byzantium to someone else. The emperor fell from his horse and then was in a coma for years! I wonder how something like that would have gone down in this timeline?
-How did the Zirid's become so beholden to the emperor? That seems like a very different development.

Chapter Six:
-Is there any suggestion that Alexios's interests in Jordan were less familial and more carnal? Did anyone try to make that assumption? How was that kind of behavior viewed in Byzantium as opposed to Western Europeans of the Islamic states?
-Is his nephew Stephen the same one from Sardinia that came in with the "Italians"?
-Why are monophysite preachers running around with the imperial army?
-What do you mean by a "static currency?"
-I think Egypt providing grain is a bit too much to swallow without some additional evidence/reasoning since it makes it look like things are going too well.

All caught up I think!

ED: You know it occurred to me to talk about what I like about the timeline. Obviously you know your sources, and you seem to have a good grasp of what's possible which makes for good reading. Considering the material, the style is light enough to keep things moving along at a good pace. The information itself is interesting and reads like a popular history which is what you were going for. In the end, it's definitely enough for me to keep reading to see how this develops and whether it will end up in a different place from the original. As usual you have all the ingredients for a high-quality timeline and the skill to write it. The turtledove Isaac's Empire got this year was richly deserved!
 
Last edited:
Chapter One:
-Really liked the idea of things being better because something worse happened right away.
-Are the failed 1060 harvests historical or alternate?
-To what extent are the imperial aristocracy capable of feuding against each other (esp. compared to the west) and to what extent are they bound to the empire?
-How did the riots almost kill the empress?
-Difference between a Theme and Duchy in the empire?
-Too bad about Norman Sicily, I rather like them.
- Thank you, it's something that always appeals to me in other people's AH.
- I can't remember right now, but I have a feeling that they might be historical. Could easily be wrong, though.
- The central control of the state was always the great power of the ERE when compared to the West (or even the Caliphate, come to that). The aristocracy can certainly feud, but this will take the form of squabbling over land and titles, and nothing more serious than that. In a lot of cases, their rivalries will play out at court, not in the provinces. The Anatolian aristocrats were not able to raise private armies in the style of their western counterparts, which limited their potential for independent military action and bound them very closely to the Empire and Imperial ideology.
- She was besieged in a chapel.
- I explained this badly- a Duchy is a large command encompassing several Themata, normally so called "Armenian Themes" in the reconquered territories of Syria, Armenia and the Upper Euphrates. The term "Armenian Theme" was used in contrast to "Roman Theme"- that is, the larger, older Themata that had existed prior to about 950.
- Norman Sicily is indeed a fascinating culture- but in the context of an optimistic survival scenario for the eleventh century ERE, it simply has to go.

Chapter Two:
-The first big issue pops up, the pig blood.
How are the Turks supposed to know it's pig blood? Why does it "seem likely" the Turks lose discipline? This seems like an implausible stereotype. Are there historical instances of this happening recorded (the Indian mutiny does not fit)?
-How does a known ally of the accuser get appointed judge? Did Isaac just want an excuse to kill him?
-Why trust new-baptized Turks? I understand marrying your men to their women, but the other way around seems more likely to end up with crypto-Muslims.
-That's a good issue to raise- I assume in the context of the battle it would've been made clear. As I explained in the updates, it's not theoretically forbidden for Muslims to come into contact with unclean substances in the course of warfare against the infidel, but the Turks are newly converted fanatics at this stage- and their response is furious.
- Typical bit of court politicking.
- It happened IOTL- Haldon discusses the settling down of captured Islamic and Slavic prisoners on Imperial land, with Byzantine families, to integrate them into society better. I suspect they'd be closely watched by the local priesthood and their village communities!

Chapter Three:
-Is the plague historical or just a random event?
-How does this slow pushing out (of Michael for Alexius) happen? I mean do people simply stop listening to him? I've always wondered how that worked, but I'm just curious.
-Shocked the Normans "unsurprisingly... collapsed" they're Normans, and you called them "Masters of Warfare." Also surprising they'd accept resettlement so far in the east especially when some of them are going to Serbia.
- A random event, I think.
- There's plenty of precedent for it happening- essentially, older and more influential men have more allies at court than young boys do, and it's usually inevitable that the younger rival will be sidelined. See the first decade of Basil II's theoretically sole reign, for example, when he was entirely dominated by his eunuch uncle and namesake.
- The Normans IOTL prospered against small Byzantine garrisons in an unimportant periphery province- their OTL invasion of the Balkans, even in the chaotic 1080s, was at best a stalemate. Here, faced with a large and well motivated Imperial army a smallish raiding band of Normans is broken very easily. As for the location of their exile, it's not as if these prisoners have a great amount of choice as to where in Alexios' domain they'll be shipped off to.

Chapter Four:
-How big was Alexios's army compared to Henry's?
Slightly larger, and considerably better armed and disciplined.

Chapter Five:
-How does the system of German "pretenders" work? How could any of them get enough traction to rebel let alone four? I'm unfamiliar with the workings of the HRE.
-Ekbert... why does he love the east? Is this historical? It seems weird that when he's not secure of his own place he's sending aid to the eastern empire even if there's a marriage alliance. Also why wouldn't some other state give him a home as a useful tool against Henry?
-Is anyone important one of Henry's allies? I mean in terms of what they hold.
-They're really using the pope for target practice? I guess I just don't buy it.
-Oh btw, since Henry's at Milan.... What's Matilda been up to this entire time?
-How did Alexious pay for his new huge army? Italian campaigns are really expensive and he has no gains in the east to draw from.
-Ah, considering Michael's death I am reminded of something that happened in a Crusader Kings II AAR playing Byzantium to someone else. The emperor fell from his horse and then was in a coma for years! I wonder how something like that would have gone down in this timeline?
-How did the Zirid's become so beholden to the emperor? That seems like a very different development.
- As am I- but there were plenty of rebellions against the ruling Emperor in OTL' HRE, so they'll certainly happen here. I think that the pretender just called himself King of the Romans and attempted to rally support to defeat the legitimate claimant and then move down to Rome for a full coronation as Emperor.
- The East is centralised, rich, and offers near unlimited opportunities for an Emperor to exercise his divine power, walking all over loud-mouthed bishops and aristocrats. What's not to like, for Ekbert? :p
-It's a stretch, I know, but worse barbarities have befallen religious leaders.
- As such a powerful woman IOTL would likely have made an attempt in the popular history that IE is ITTL, I suspect she's died early, and been relegated to an historical footnote.
- The Byzantine Empire was quite capable of raising extra taxation to pay for armies to go off on punitive campaigns- unlike a western state, it doesn't need to tap new resources, merely to deploy existing ones in new areas. The delight of a rapacious bureaucracy!
- Badly, I should think!
- There's plenty of precedent for small Islamic states being drawn into the Imperial orbit as vassals in the tenth and eleventh century- the Zirids submitting is just a logical extension of this.
 
Chapter Seven: The Dragon Emperor
Chapter Seven: The Dragon Emperor

"And so, together, they led the Roman Empire- the barbarian, the eunuch, and the soldier."

Philotheos of Thebes, Life of Manuel, written circa 1190.


The corpse of the Emperor Alexios was barely cold when Jordan of Aversa hurriedly returned to the Imperial Palace, woke the dead Emperor’s brother Isaac and urged him to hasten to the Great Church of Hagia Sophia, there to become the third of his family to take the Imperial throne. Isaac did not delay. The elderly Patriarch, John Italos (i), was swept out of bed, and forced to perform a rapid coronation ceremony in the early hours of the morning, before a small gathering. By the morning of October 3rd 1117, Isaac II Komnenos seemed to have securely snatched the throne of the Roman Empire.

The new Emperor was fast approaching his seventieth birthday at the time of his accession to the throne, and yet, according to all who describe him, he was in magnificent physical condition, the product of years of vigorous living. Unlike his brother, who had often preferred to retreat to bookish obscurity, Isaac was a loud and domineering figure, every bit the warrior Emperor. His hair was still shaggy golden (“like a fearsome lion”, Philotheos (ii) tells us), and he stood well over six feet tall. When Basil Palaiologos had his first audience with his rival a few days after Isaac’s accession, the Emperor was so intimidating and overbearing that Palaiologos could barely speak to request his promotion to the office of Domestikos tēs Anatolēs in exchange for the abandonment of all claims to the throne. Isaac reacted violently, chasing Palaiologos out of the room armed with the battle-axe of a Varangian guardsman (iii). Isaac had suffered years of humiliation at the hands of his brother, and now he had seized the throne he was intent on revenge.

Chasing his rivals around the Palace might have amused the new Basileus, but it was not intelligent politics. Within a few weeks, Basil Palaiologos had fled to Antioch and there, declaring an alliance with the current Domestikos tēs Anatolēs Bardanes of Mopsuestia, he killed the Doux Pantherios Skleros and raised the standard of revolt. He had ample support. For the armies of the East, Isaac “the Italian” (iv) was a semi-literate barbarian, supported by the equally barbaric Jordan of Aversa and his followers. Palaiologos had little trouble in whipping up the Tagmata, and then, with the coming of spring 1118, marching them west to occupy the Anatolian plateau.

Isaac’s response was characteristically forthright: and all the more disastrous for it. Gathering detachments from the various Themata nearest to Constantinople, plus his own palace guard regiments and a motley band of Western European mercenaries, he sped east, and met the rebels in battle near the town of Amorion. The result was quick, and decisive. The army of the Emperor was routed (v), and Isaac himself barely escaped with his life. Bardanes then advanced yet further westward, and was welcomed into Nicaea by the influential local landowner, Nikēphoros Nafpliotis (vi).

Things got still worse for the beleaguered Emperor, who had fled across the Aegean to Athens, following his defeat. In July, his own son Stephen raised the standard of revolt (vii). Stephen’s motives for doing so are murky, but what seems most likely is that the Emperor’s younger son had felt snubbed by his father, who had repeatedly favoured his elder brother Manuel. Stephen immediately crossed to Epiros (viii), accompanied by a large and experienced army. It was, for the Emperor Isaac II, the lowest point of his reign.

From here, though, the rebel cause would fall apart so rapidly that it was impossible for any of the participants not to attribute affairs to divine intervention of some sort. In desperation, the Senate of Constantinople, alarmed by the prospect of dynastic change, entrusted the remaining armies of the West to Jordan of Aversa, a hitherto militarily inexperienced courtier. It was a wise decision. Jordan surprised many (not least himself) by inflicting a serious defeat on a small section of the rebel army, which prompted Bardanes to retreat from Nicaea, onto less favourable terrain (ix). There, his army demoralised, he was badly defeated by Jordan’s enthusiastic troops, and died on the battlefield. Shortly afterward, Nikephoros Nafpliotis returned to the side of the Government (x). The Emperor Isaac was able to return to Constantinople with his position considerably secured.

The heart was now out of the rebellion, and the Emperor and his allies did not hesitate to press home their advantage. Stephen Komnenos was starved out of the Haemic peninsula (xi), and forced back to Italy, pursued by his brother and a large army. Manuel duly defeated Stephen near the city of Italian Troy (xii), and subjected his brother to a brutal blinding. Meanwhile, Isaac and Jordan pushed Basil Palaiologos out the other way, to the Eastern front, where he too was defeated and blinded near Melitene. An opportunistic invasion by the Atabeg of Harran, attempting to take advantage of the chaos, was briskly smashed, and Isaac II returned to Constantinople, his position secured.

He would never return to the battlefield again, and, indeed, soon began to find his age finally catching up with him. Restricted to his bed for most of the day, and living on a diet of specially softened food to compensate for the loss of most of his teeth, the old Emperor must have cut a rather feeble figure. This enforced confinement, though, was probably distinctly beneficial for the Empire as a whole. It is an irony that circumstances had forced Alexios Komnenos, a born administrator, to become a soldier- and it is even more of one that differing circumstances forced his brother, a born soldier, to enact a serious programme of administrative reforms.

To credit these reforms to Isaac is a stretch, as they had largely been dreamt up by the Parakoimomenos Basilios. Nonetheless, the Emperor was able to throw his weight and remaining energy fully behind the eunuch’s ideas, to force them through with a fearsome degree of efficiency. Basilios’ main concern was the taxation system which had, for close to a century now, been struggling to cope with the changing nature of life in the Empire. A system based on fleecing rural peasants to defend a beleaguered state had worked well enough in the dark days of the eighth and ninth centuries, but now, with the Empire unquestionably more powerful than any of its neighbours, and urban life booming, things had begun to look distinctly different (xiii).

Furthermore, the civil war, plus the expensive wars of the reign of Alexios had left the coffers in a parlous state. The Anatolian peasantry was increasingly turning to banditry; with the exactions of the Imperial tax collectors becoming too much to bear it was hardly surprising that they had enthusiastically supported the revolt of Basil Palaiologos and his allies. As more peasants evaded tax, takings fell, forcing the administration to tighten the squeeze still further on those remaining taxpayers. The situation was plainly untenable and Basilios, with the civil war now out of the way, was determined to scrap it.

Tax would, for the first time in centuries, become the responsibility of cities, not the wider Themata. Inspectors of the Parakoimomenos moved out into the countryside, assigning, in many cases, the exact territories to cities that they had held in the sixth and seventh centuries. Only monastic land remained inviolate, but even that was to be taxed to a degree, a decree imposed upon a Church by Basilios’ ally, Patriarch Italos, who died shortly afterward. Most significantly, for local communities, was the ruling that tax would be collected by local people, with a rotating programme of tax gathering shared by the major landowners, who would be assessed regularly for corruption by one another. It was far from a perfect system, and corruption remained rampant. Nonetheless, for the first time, the return of urban life to the provinces of the Empire was properly acknowledged. The slowly rising urban classes would now begin to acquire an important new stake in society, as allies of the Imperial Government against potential corruption by the tax-gathering magnates- or, alternatively, as allies of the magnates to collude in fleecing the others. It was a significant step- the power of an educated urban group, the so called “Mesoi”(xiv)would henceforth become an increasingly crucial element in governing the Roman Empire. Most importantly, by focusing the state’s finance-gathering apparatus upon the towns, the burden could be lifted somewhat from the fields. The life of the peasant remained a gruelling one, but no longer would it be crushing. These reforms, coupled by a limited debasement of the Nomisma to eighteen carats (xv), were enough for the Empire to financially turn the corner. By 1122, it was rumoured that Isaac had amassed a veritable dragon’s hoard of treasure (xvi).

The dragon himself, though, was not long for the world. Now nearly seventy-five years old, Isaac II Komnenos was by some way the oldest Emperor Constantinople had seen in centuries. In the summer of 1121, to no-one’s surprise, he had associated his son Manuel on the throne with him, and, to make doubly sure of the security of the succession, Manuel soon raised his own son, John (xvii), to the rank of Caesar. Isaac spent much of the day asleep, delegating much of the business of Government to Manuel and the ever energetic Parakoimomenos. The rest of the time he spent in deep theological discussion with the newly appointed Patriarch, Antigonos, a former battlefield chaplain. Isaac, in his prime, had never been a particularly spiritual man. But now, with death approaching, his interest in what lay beyond reached feverish levels. Jordan of Aversa reports on several occasions being forced to physically restrain the elderly Emperor from begging for mercy on the streets of Constantinople in the spring of 1122, and there was a general feeling around court that the end was nigh.

Death, though, would be a while in coming, and Isaac II would suffer badly, losing his sight and control of his bowels before it finally came. Constantinopolitans might have wondered, privately, if this was divine retribution for his aggression and radicalism, but few would have dared utter those thoughts aloud. For the House of Komnenos’ grip on power was now as firm as that of any dynasty had been. When, at length, Isaac finally passed away in late August, there was no doubt as to who would succeed him. Manuel Komnenos was crowned barely an hour after his father’s death- and with his accession began the reign of the most powerful and capable Emperor Constantinople had seen in living memory.
_____________________________
i. An OTL heretic who died in the 1080s. ITTL, he's raised to the throne by Michael VII Psellos as a young man. Italos enjoys a long and successful time in the Patriarchal chair, holding the office until his death in 1120.
ii. Philotheos of Thebes, that is, an hagiographer/biographer of the late 12th century. His "Life of Manuel" is one of the most important literary texts of the contemporary ERE of TTL.
iii. By the end of the 1110s, the English influence upon the Varangians is fading, and they're starting to encompass all sorts of Northern Europeans. Particularly drawn to Constantinople are the Poles, seeking service with a fellow enemy of the Germans.
iv. As we'll see, coming from Italy can make it difficult for an Emperor to enforce his will over the Eastern armies, with their strong Armenian contingents.
v. Unsurprising, really. The troops of the so called "Roman Themes" of western and central Anatolia are now little more than a local police force- it's hardly surprising they're cut to ribbons by the professional Tagmatic armies.
vi. A name that might be familiar to readers of IE v1.
vii. You might think this is a stretch- but revolts of sons against fathers are not unknown in Byzantine history, although the main examples are admittedly from the post-1204 successor states.
viii. Modern Albania, roughly.
ix. Hitherto something of a bookworm, Jordan has spent years reading up on the military exploits of various commanders. This, coupled with good old fashioned luck, allows him to pull off something quite unexpected- and it's all go from here.
x. It's an indication of how bad the situation is still perceived to be in Constantinople that Nafpliotis is able to keep his eyes.
xi. Haemic peninsula = the Balkans, a Turkish word that obviously wouldn't be used ITTL.
xii. Modern Troia in Apulia. Though reputedly founded by an ancient Greek hero, the town we're talking about is a Byzantine fortress settlement established late in the reign of Basil II.
xiii. I've discussed this briefly before, but basically, what had since the seventh century been a very rural society is finally beginning to return to something more resembling the network of towns and cities of Late Antiquity.
xvi. This is a Byzantine term that literally means "the middle", though we should be cautious to label these people as a true "middle class" as we'd understand it. Nonetheless, they're not a million miles off... IOTL, it's mostly used for when discussing social changes in the successor states, but here, I'm using it to describe a class than IOTL I suspect was somewhat stymied by the turbulence of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries.
xv. Originally established at 24 carats by Constantine the Great, the Solidus-Nomisma had been devalued to around 20 by Constantine IX, something that may well have further spurred economic growth. This second, minor devaluation, will be the last for some centuries, though it brings Basilios a degree of short-term unpopularity.
xvi. These are pretty radical changes, I know, and I wasn't sure how to structure them. In the end, I justified them by reasoning that, for a state like Byzantium, about the only thing that could encourage radical restructuring would be the urge to acquire more taxes. Restructuring had taken place in the past several times, after all, and I think in this scenario, it would happen sooner or later in some form.
xvii. The grandson of Alexios Komnenos too, through his daughter Styliane.
 
Last edited:
Top