Manuel focuses on the east

What if Manuel Komnenos focuses maninly on the east during his reign? As i understand, Manuel generally saw oppurtunities everywhere and sent resources there, diplomatic, army etc, even though it would have been better if he focused on the east. So there was a war in Italy, wars with Hungary, an attempted invasion of Egypt etc. Lets assume that Manuel generally decides to focus on Anatolia, Armenia and the Levant, what can he achieve with the resources that his father and grandfather left behind? Can he drive the Turks and Nomads from Anatolia? Can he prevent (and the actions of his legacy) the Crusader States from collapsing?
 
I'd say yes, Manuel can recover Anatolia and prevent the problems he left behind from coming about. He may even be able to bring Antioch into a form of vassilage if he plays it right. His adventures in the west were a bit of a waste, but even more than that he needs a secure successor, for which he needs to avoid having a son who is under 20 at the time of his death. That way he can either have a son earlier who will be able to prevent the massive succession crisis chain of events that lead to the 4th crusade, or he'll have no son and place a powerful noble or the king of Hungary on the throne.
 
I'd say yes, Manuel can recover Anatolia and prevent the problems he left behind from coming about. He may even be able to bring Antioch into a form of vassilage if he plays it right. His adventures in the west were a bit of a waste, but even more than that he needs a secure successor, for which he needs to avoid having a son who is under 20 at the time of his death. That way he can either have a son earlier who will be able to prevent the massive succession crisis chain of events that lead to the 4th crusade, or he'll have no son and place a powerful noble or the king of Hungary on the throne.

Wasn't Antioch already under vassalige? Didn't Manuel also have a older son by the time he died as well (i always wondered why Alexios took over the throne before him)?

To the point about a secure successor: The successor needs to old enough and capable, due to the way that the Komnenian system was set up. Was the current Hungarian King at the time a capable one?
 
Wasn't Antioch already under vassalige? Didn't Manuel also have a older son by the time he died as well (i always wondered why Alexios took over the throne before him)?

To the point about a secure successor: The successor needs to old enough and capable, due to the way that the Komnenian system was set up. Was the current Hungarian King at the time a capable one?
Antioch was a vassal on and off, but it could have been more of a solid arrangement if more effort had been made IMO.

Manuel had only one legitimate son, and his illegitimate ones were around the same age, so no older son. Bela III of Hungary was going to be Manuel's son-in-law before Manuel's own son was born, and by all accounts was very competent indeed. Hungary flourished under him, and if he had ascended under the most likely (Manuel has no son) circumstances to the throne of the ERE he would certainly have done better than the mass of rapid-fire emperors who followed Manuel IOTL.
 
Antioch was a vassal on and off, but it could have been more of a solid arrangement if more effort had been made IMO.

Manuel had only one legitimate son, and his illegitimate ones were around the same age, so no older son. Bela III of Hungary was going to be Manuel's son-in-law before Manuel's own son was born, and by all accounts was very competent indeed. Hungary flourished under him, and if he had ascended under the most likely (Manuel has no son) circumstances to the throne of the ERE he would certainly have done better than the mass of rapid-fire emperors who followed Manuel IOTL.

How could Antioch have been made a vassal under more solid arrangments? It practically bordered Byzantium.

But focusing on Hungary and Byzantium at the same time would have been difficult. Even more so with the constant Nomads raids. How would have it been done?
 
I've had the same idea earlier this year, but I abandoned it since I'd have had to follow Byzantium's and Hungary's history at the same time.

My PoD was that Manuel I is struck by a disease and dies at the end of 1168. His heir at this time is prince Béla (the would-be Béla III of Hungary in OTL) and his wife is Maria Komnenos.

He adopted a greek name OTL - Alexios - so he is crowned Byzantine Emperor as Alexios II. Before his ascension he felt that converting to Orthodox faith would secure his rule.

He intends to be in good relations with his homeland so he gives Dalmatia back to the King of Hungary, Stephen III, who was his older brother.
After this, IMHO, he can focus on the east.

In 1172 OTL, Stephen was poisoned and had no legal heir. Prince Géza would become the new king unless Béla/Alexios decides to lay claim on the throne, resulting in a war of succession.
OR
Maybe Stephen's devotees poisoned his brother so he may assume the Hungarian throne after being denied the Byzantine one. But since he is no longer Catholic, he won't be accepted as a legitimate ruler. Or even if an archbishop crowns him, the Pope would be quite angry. So his followers no longer have motives to posion the Hungarian king, thus he stays alive and the good relations between the two brothers and states continue to exist.
 
I don't think that the Byzantines could accept a Hungarian as Emperor. They didn't accept Maria "Xene" and after Andronikos took over the throne there was a massacre of Latins in Constantinople, this was aginst the Italians though.
 
Top