My next Byzantine TL - choice?

Which emperor/imperial claimant should it focus on?

  • Isaac Komnenos of Cyprus

    Votes: 17 34.0%
  • Isaac II Angelos

    Votes: 7 14.0%
  • Alexios Branas

    Votes: 2 4.0%
  • Alexios V Doukas Mourtzouphlos

    Votes: 6 12.0%
  • Alexios & David Komnenos of Trebizond

    Votes: 8 16.0%
  • Michael I Komnenos Doukas of Epirus

    Votes: 8 16.0%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 2 4.0%

  • Total voters
    50
If I ever get around to finishing 'The Right Man for the Job', I might do another Byzantine-oriented ATL. Read below and decide which emperor/imperial claimant would interest you the most:

Isaac Komnenos of Cyprus - grandson of Manuel I's surviving older brother, also named Isaac. Broke away during the reign of Andronikos I and ruled Cyprus like a tyrant (apparently worse than Andronikos) until Richard the Lionheart overthrew him in 1191. When consulting a fortune-teller, when the letter iota appeared, Andronikos worried it would be a sign that Isaac would become the next emperor...

Isaac II Angelos - During his reign, the empire lost Bulgaria, Serbia, Cilicia and Cyprus forever. Unlike his brother and son, however, Isaac tried to be a somewhat competent emperor and remedy these problems. Perhaps with a bit more luck and skill, Isaac II and his dynasty would have been remembered differently.

Alexios Branas - A noble and general who successfully defeated the Sicilian Normans at the Battle of Demetritzes in 1185. Two years later, he rebelled against Isaac II during the Vlach-Bulgarian rebellion but was killed by Conrad of Montferrat. His son, Theodore, also a military leader, became the lover and, eventually, husband of Agnes of France, younger sister of Philip II Augustus, fiancé of Alexios II and child bride of Andronikos I.

Alexios V Doukas Mourtzouphlos - The emperor who overthrew and killed Alexios IV and gets unfairly lumped in with the Angelos dynasty. We're it not for the wind changing direction, he might haved saved Constantinople from the crusaders.

Alexios & David Komnenos of Trebizond - Both men had a claim to the imperial throne via their grandfather, Andronikos I. David was the soldier and Alexios the administrator. OTL, they were defeated by Theodore Laskaris and Trebizond was knocked out of the race.

Michael I Komnenos Doukas - Founder of the Despotate of Epirus, campaigned viciously against the crusaders and Venetians. He was assassinated in 1215 and while his brother Theodore came close to capturing Constantinople, he got on the wrong side of the Bulgarians and Epirus never recovered. What if Michael I hadn't been assassinated or Theodore had attacked Constantinople instead of the Bulgarians?

Please comment and share your opinions.
 
Last edited:
The Cypriot- enough with nice byzzies. let's see a darth vader/frank underwood sorta guy take the empire to a successful but darker future, slave armies, crucifixions, razed cities and all.
 
According to Wikipedia, after Andronikos I was killed, Agnes remained in Constantinople and was later formally married to Theodore Branas under Emperor Baldwin I of Flanders.

He meant that you wrote that the guy's son became the *wife* and not the *husband*
 
He meant that you wrote that the guy's son became the *wife* and not the *husband*

Ah, oops. :p Fixed now.

Thanks for letting me know. By the way, who did you vote for and why?

Judging by the polls, I'm starting to get the feeling that no one has any love for Alexios Branas. :(
 
I'm for the MIchael I Komnenos Doukas timeline. No one that I can recall has ever explored that possibility.
 
Okay, so far, out of 27 votes, Isaac of Cyprus has the majority. Any particular reason why? Is it because of his 'reputation' as recorded by Niketas Choniates or because he had real emperor material?
 
I don't mind really: but what I would like to see is a plausible historical TL that avoids the use of hindsight or wishful thinking, and enjoys proper spelling and grammar as well as decent formatting.

Get those things right, and I'll be a happy reader. :p
 
I don't mind really: but what I would like to see is a plausible historical TL that avoids the use of hindsight or wishful thinking, and enjoys proper spelling and grammar as well as decent formatting.

Get those things right, and I'll be a happy reader. :p

Very well. Did you think those flaws were apparent in my last TL? Would an example of wishful thinking be, say, Alexios Branas handling the Bulgarians and Third a Crusade better than Isaac II simply because of his previous war record?

So far, Isaac of Cyprus is still in the lead. Personally, while he would be interesting to write about, I have doubts about how long he could stay in power. Niketas Choniates said he was worse than Andronikos I (although he is the only primary source. Correct me if I'm wrong). What's to stop him ending up like Andronikos or Justinian II?

I also see two votes for Other, but no explainations.
 
Does anyone know how to close a poll? If so, I plan to close this one tomorrow. Anyone else who wants to vote had better do so now.
 
Very well. Did you think those flaws were apparent in my last TL? Would an example of wishful thinking be, say, Alexios Branas handling the Bulgarians and Third a Crusade better than Isaac II simply because of his previous war record?

Oh, I'd just like to clarify myself there: that comment wasn't intended as an attack on you, at all. It's just that AH.com suffers from a lot of TL concepts that suffer a great deal from the above problems: and I'd include the early chapters of the first Isaac's Empire within that. The problem seems to stem (it certainly did in my case) from enthusiastic teenagers trying to write about something they're interested in, but not particularly knowledgeable about.
 
Oh, I'd just like to clarify myself there: that comment wasn't intended as an attack on you, at all. It's just that AH.com suffers from a lot of TL concepts that suffer a great deal from the above problems: and I'd include the early chapters of the first Isaac's Empire within that. The problem seems to stem (it certainly did in my case) from enthusiastic teenagers trying to write about something they're interested in, but not particularly knowledgeable about.

That's okay. I didn't think you were attacking me, I was just fishing for some constructive criticism. Though I admit I do rather fall into the same case as you did with the first Isaac's Empire.

Speaking of Isaacs, who did you vote for and why? Personally, while I'd be happy to write about any of them, there's something about Alexios Branas that just gets me. I mean, you've got a capable general who defeats the Normans in what would be their last invasion of Greece, tried (unsuccessfully) to take the throne from what would prove to be a terrible dynasty and his son ends up marrying a French princess/empress to two previous Roman emperors (Alexios II I can understand and might even explore, but Andronikos? Um, ew?)

How is that not exciting?
 
Top