Michael IX, Byzantine Emperor

WI he had lived and reigned for at least a decade or so after his father? Would the string of defeats had continued, or could he have turned things around?
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
WI he had lived and reigned for at least a decade or so after his father? Would the string of defeats had continued, or could he have turned things around?

The man had no talent, losing nearly every battle he fought. He was probably beyond help I think.

Now, if you posit a POD where he dies earlier, that might have some use. But probably not much...


Sargon
 
It seems that Michael was a brave but poor general. I don't know what kind of administrator he was , but I doubt he was worse than his father.

Michael's death caused the civil war between his father , Andronicus II and his son , Andronicus III. If Michael had lived longer , Andronicus II wouldn't have needed to disinherit Michael's son , so the civil war wouldn't have taken place.

While Andronicus III's reign was rather succesfull , his premature death caused the civil wars between the supporters of his son , John V and the Cantacuzenes .
Because of those civil wars , the Byzantine Empire lost significant territories to the Ottomans and to the Serbs and became too weak to have a realistic chance of recovery .
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
So how do you get a timeline that minimizes the civil wars over succession?

Get rid of the disaster that was Andronicus II for starters.

Yes, one could have Michael XI live longer, but I'm not convinced that'll ease a significant number of issues.

Really, the last chance for anything meaningful for the Empire was to have someone competent succeed Michael VIII. And even then, Michael VIII made mistakes, concentrating too much on his European possessions and therefore neglecting what had previously been a dynamic and successful Nicaean state on the eastern side of the Bosphorus.


Sargon
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
Sorry for the typo, I of course meant OTL's Michael IX, who was co-emperor with his father Andronicus II. Well, it was late when I wrote that.

Still, brave and conscientious as he was, it didn't help him that much. A change in character would be helpful though. However my point about the awful rule of Andronicus II still stands. Not only was it dreadful, it was also long and dreadful, which just made things even worse.


Sargon
 
So how do you get a timeline that minimizes the civil wars over succession?

The civil wars were caused by the premature deaths of the emperors coupled with the lack of acceptable heirs , so it would be easy to avoid the wars by avoiding those deaths.

Option1:
- Manuel , Michael's youngest son , is not accidentally killed by his older brother's men
- because he hasn't lost a son , Michael lives longer and dies in 1343 ( he would have been 67 years old )
- Andronicos III dies prematurely , as in OTL , in 1341
- Manuel becomes emperor in 1343

Option2:
- Michael lives longer and becomes emperor after his father's death ( 1332 in OTL ) and reigns until 1340
- Andronicus III succeds him and due to the butterfly effect , dies in 1361 , ( he would have been 64 years old )
- he is succeded by his son John , who should be about 30 years old

Option3:
- Manuel is killed as in OTL
- his mother dies due to grief instead of his father
- Michael marries someone else and has another son ( let's call him Constantine ) , born in 1322
- Michael reigns between 1332 and 1345 , dies at 70
- Andronicus dies prematurely in 1341
- Constantine , now in his 20's becomes emperor

A POD in 1320 or 1319 is rather late if you want the Byzantine Empire to become one of the strongest states in Europe , but if you avoid the civil wars , you should come up with a relatively stable empire which is a regional power.
 
Top