John II Comnenus survives until 1160

[robertp6165]

The Byzantine Emperor John II Comnenus is considered by many scholars to be the most successful of his dynasty. He lead successful campaigns against the Pechenegs and Magyars, and re-took much of Asia Minor from the Seljuk Turks. He also campaigned in the Holy Land in cooperation with the Crusaders, and actually established Byzantine suzereignty over some of the Crusader States. His methodical approach to warfare conserved the Empire's forces and protected it's heartland, while slowly and steadily expanding it's territories.

He died prematurely in 1143 after being accidentally infected by a poisoned arrow while hunting. He was at the time on the verge of leading a new campaign in the Holy Land which might have made major gains for Christianity in that region. What if he had survived the wound, or the wound had never occurred, and John survived until 1160, dying at the ripe old age of 73? Let's assume also that his physical and mental powers remain strong until the last year of his life.

How might this have affected history and the future of the Byzantine Empire?

 

[Riain]

I don't know about his war but how would that effect the succession in the Dynasty in years to come? Could this change push the Comnenos revival further along, perhaps retaking more of Anatolia and/or butterflying away the 4th Crusade?

 

[Sargon]

He would have been better than Manuel I would think. If the Kalojohannes lives longer and keeps his faculties, once would probably see a future extension of Roman power and territory, especially in southern Anatolia and Syria, and it would all have been built upon a more solid foundation too.

He is still left with the problem of central Anatolia which has now been heavily Seljukified. Returning this to the condition it had been in the past would be a formidable challenge. However given Manuel's later successes there, the methodical approach of John II would most likely be even more successful, especially if he has secured Roman interests further south. This could be the start of the reintegration of the region into the Empire. It's still going to take quite some time and careful planning before it becomes as productive and useful to the Empire as it had been in the past, and a policy of religious tolerance in that area may be conducive to this too.

However, he really needs to make sure his son Isaac takes over from him instead of Manuel to give it a better chance of surviving his demise. Manuel looked to the west far too much and this angered his subjects somewhat, causing problems that would doom the dynasty. He was also far too generous with his largesse, giving away vast amounts of gold, silver and precious jewels which caused large problems for the treasury. Issac was probably overlooked because he was known to have a short temper compared to Manuel. Still, he would probably have been the better choice.


Sargon

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

I think the problem that you run into is that sometime during John's reign the Byzantines had taken the maximum amount of what could be called easily acquired land in Anatolia. Once the coasts were secured (and they were mostly secure by the time of John's reign) then the only un-secured part of Anatolia was the interior. This area was probably pretty heavily Turkish at this point and would have been hard to pacify and rule using only armies.

Someone in an earlier thread about this same kind of idea suggested that a series of fortresses, ala the English in Wales, is what would be needed to pacify the Turks in Anatolia, and I think that's correct. The problem is that your going to have to build a lot more of them, and your going to have to have military control of the area in which your building them. As successful as they were, this kind of control of the interior was never achieved by the Komnenos, or indeed any Byzantine polity, after Manzikert. So hit Manuel on the head a few times, and when your done have him convinced that forts are way of the future (maybe "God has shown us that walls of men are no use against the Turks, we must build walls of stone"). After John delvers the crushing hammer blow to the Sultanate of Rum (Iconium) killing the Sultan and taking Iconium, his successor devotes himself to the pacification of the interior. The heavy taxes he imposes could cause the Bulgars or Vlachs to revolt, and boom, the Byzantines have an instant settler population (Byzantines had a policy of relocating restive peoples to opposite frontiers, and in this case the need for Christians to settle in Turkish Central Anatolia is quite great) ready to move from the shores of the Danube to the headwaters of the Euphrates.

 

[el t]

John Comnenus

I recall that he fought mainly the Danishmends of Melitene in Asia Minor, rather than the Seljuks of Iconium. He main expedition against Neocaesarea (Niksar) failed. This was in 1139-1140. If he had lived longer, I don't think that things would have turned out that much differently. He may have decided to annex the principality of Antioch, rather than allow it to remain a client state.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

I recall that he fought mainly the Danishmends of Melitene in Asia Minor, rather than the Seljuks of Iconium. He main expedition against Neocaesarea (Niksar) failed. This was in 1139-1140. If he had lived longer, I don't think that things would have turned out that much differently. He may have decided to annex the principality of Antioch, rather than allow it to remain a client state.

Annex Antioch? The Byzantine Empire was unable to effectively control Lesser Armenia, let alone the Latin Principality of Antioch, which managed to stay out of Muslim clutches for over a half-century after Jerusalem fell. The city was very anti-Greek, and would suck up a lot of resources to hold as a direct possession. Much easier to force the Prince of Antioch to kow-tow every now and then. Perhaps John II arranges Maria of Antioch to his heir, and their son is put forward as a candidate for Antioch's Princely throne.

Additionally, direct control of Antioch is pointless. On a marco level the Byzantines and Outremer Latins have the same goal, holding off the Muslims. If the Byzantine are able to gain control of the interior of Anatolia, then they would knock-out their existential enemy, the Iconium Sultanate, and then be able to push their claims of suzernity over the Latin Outremer.

One thing to think about is that if John II is alive in the late 1140's then perhaps we see John II go with the Crusaders to the Holy Land for the Second Crusade? He could make Prince Raymond bow down to him, and maybe also push the Crusaders to attack Aleppo. This would actually be a good trade off for Raymond, John gets the Latin Crusaders to attack Aleppo and in return Raymond recognizes John's overlordship. Perhaps Maria's marriage could be arranged during this time, with Maria being shipped back to Constantinople (it was the custom to raise foreign princesses in the court of their future husband)?

 

[el t]

John II

Remember that the population of crusader Antioch was still heavily Greek. The Greeks were practically independent by the early 13th century. By then the Frankish princes had moved to Tripoli, and Antioch was governed by it's commune, where the Greeks were especially important.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Remember that the population of crusader Antioch was still heavily Greek. The Greeks were practically independent by the early 13th century. By then the Frankish princes had moved to Tripoli, and Antioch was governed by it's commune, where the Greeks were especially important.

However ethnically Greek the city may have been, its Princes consistently defied the Byzantine Emperors with the full support of the city's population. The people also refused to support later Princes who attempted to bring Antioch into the Armenian Kingdom of Cilcia. I would say that city's population was focused on independence, and its history proves this. Antioch did in OTL, and would in any ATL, prove very difficult to bring under direct Byzantine control.

 

[trajen777]

I agree that Antioch was a difficult area to control however in the time frame of the Byz recon quests I think the general consensus was it was a good target to reconquor vs. the interior of Anatolia – because of the vast increase in tax wealth it would provide vs. the interior. However a longer term approach made the conquest of Anatolia vital as it provided a safe harbor defense if they could get back to the Taurus mts and beyond.

I always felt that if the Byz had taken the English / Welsh program for building a series of encroaching castles on the population and then have a series of Banda (60 men) in a constant raiding pattern attacking villages / destroying (or capturing) live stock, after this area would be captured then Theme’s would be established.

As to what happen if John had liver longer here is my thoughts (another 15 yrs) ::

• John spends 2 years capturing Aleppo and moves the Anticoh Crusaders to Aleppo
• With the Eastern border secure John would have several choices
  • The Turks in the interior of Anatolia had broken apart into warring bands so a 10 year systematic program could have reconquored Anatolia
  • Attack the Normans in Sisley
  • Merge with the Crusader states go after Damascus
  • Try a conquest of Egypt

• I think the most likely would be a conquest of the interior of Anatolia – so assume the next 10 years would be spent doing this.
• He would have continued the re-energization of the navy
• The emphasis on the Themes would have resulted in a more nationalization of the army.

 

[el t]

John II

I don't think the Byzantines were strong enough at that time to drive the Turks out of Asia Minor. The expedition against Niksar (Neocaesaria) had failed. That had been a major undertaking and although I can't recall all of the details, I do remember that a Byzantine member of the royal family had actually gone over the Turks and converted to Islam during this campaign.

 

[Riain]

I think the Empire did what it could at the time, that's why I'd think that if they did get Anatolia back it would have to be because of someone else. Barbrossa capturing Iconium on his way to Outremer is my favorite.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

I don't think the Byzantines were strong enough at that time to drive the Turks out of Asia Minor. The expedition against Niksar (Neocaesaria) had failed. That had been a major undertaking and although I can't recall all of the details, I do remember that a Byzantine member of the royal family had actually gone over the Turks and converted to Islam during this campaign.

The man was John Tzelepes Komnenos, the son of John II's brother Issac. The father and son both plotted against John II, and were exiled for 6 years, during this time they lived among the Turks. In 1138 they were pardoned, and allowed back into court. John Tzelepes defected in 1140 and married the Sultan's daughter. The Ottoman's made their claim on the title of Kaiser e Rum (Roman Emperor in Turkish), through this marriage, claiming to be descendants of John Tzelepes.

Anyway, this doesn't really demonstrate anything about the strength or lack thereof of the Sultanate. I think that if it suffered a major defeat in which the Sultan was killed and Iconium fell, then the Sultanate would face a serious threat to its survival, to the west from the Byzantines and from the east from the competing Turkish states.

 

[trajen777]

Pulling out my trusty Treadgold book the only campaign I can find at Neocaesarea was one where John besieged it in 1140 “the winter turned harsh – after 6 months John raised the siege but the emperor regained Trebizond”

“The next year he recovered the entire Pontac sea board from the Danishmendids, and meanwhile the Danishmendids emir dies and his domains broke up into separate emirates. John took this as a chance not to destroy the Turks but to turn his back on them and campaign against the city of Antioch”

If he had campaigned against the Turks in a systematic campaign I feel he would have had a good chance of success

 

[trajen777]

I also think that John could have secured a marrage allience with the Crusader states

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

I also think that John could have secured a marrage allience with the Crusader states

You don't need John II surviving to do this: In 1153 Baldwin III married Manuel's niece (the daughter of Issac's older brother Issac); in 1161 Manuel married Maria of Antioch, the daughter of Prince Raymond and sister of Prince Bohemund, and fathered his heir Alexios off her; and in 1164 Amalric (sp?) I divorced his first wife on his accession to the throne and married a Byzantine princess. Basically following the Second Crusade the Eastern Latins decided that the Byzantines were the only major power with a vested interest in their continued survival, and began developing an alliance with them.

If you look at how the Muslims operated, it would seem that Nur ad-Din's and his father Zengi's greatest fear was that the Byzantines would become involved in the affairs of the Eastern Latins, and they worked to develop a state that could crush Jerusalem in a single blow, rather than taking it piecemeal and allowing time for a Byzantine intervention. Of course by the time Saladin decided to destroy Jerusalem the Byzantines were less than 20 years away from the 4th Crusade, and murdering each other for the purple.

In regards to him attacking a shattered Danishmand Emirate, I think that he, like you, identified Antioch as the higher value target in this case.

 

[chronos]

This would totally change history with the survival of the Roman Empire. No fall of Jerusalem and the crusader states become Roman vassals. No third crusade and problems with Frederick Barbarossa and tribute to him. No fourth crusade and the sack of Constantinople.

If the Osman Turks are dealt with there will be no crossing into Europe. Meanwhile Islam is pushed back in Syria and the Levant.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

This would totally change history with the survival of the Roman Empire. No fall of Jerusalem and the crusader states become Roman vassals. No third crusade and problems with Frederick Barbarossa and tribute to him. No fourth crusade and the sack of Constantinople.

If the Osman Turks are dealt with there will be no crossing into Europe. Meanwhile Islam is pushed back in Syria and the Levant.

The thing is though that this could end up not having that effect. With the Christians, both Eastern and Western, being more successful in the 12th century, this could have serious impacts on the outcome of 13th century history.

In particular I'm thinking that when Hulegu Khan comes West into the Middle East, the Caliphate will be a frontline state against the Latin East and the resurgent Byzantine Empire. I don't know if the Latin East and Byzatines, who would presumably have managed to gain control of Egypt, would be able to resist the Il-Khans to the same extent that the Mamelukes did.