Plausibility Check for Possible TL

Seriously considering writing a timeline on an idea I have been playing with for the last couple of years. I have three P.o.Ds which occur.

The first P.o.D.

What if Richard the Lionheart of England dies in 1186 instead of his younger brother Geoffrey?

In this Alternate Time Line Geoffrey becomes King of England in 1189 when King Henry II dies (he died in 1189 in OTL). In order to keep John raising rebellion, Geoffrey sends him off to manage English territory in Ireland.

In a strategic move, Geoffrey sells (or just flat out gives) all of Southern France under English control (except for the border region with the Iberian peninsula) to King Phillip II of France. This allows England to do what it never could properly do in our timeline.

The Second P.o.D.

With the full support of English resources available to them, Aragon gains complete control of the Iberian peninsula somewhere between the years of 1195 and 1220.

The third P.o.D. takes place on the eastern side of the Mediterranean.

The Third P.o.D.

What if Alexios II Komnenos or Alexius II Comnenus Emperor of the Byzantine Empire managed to avoid being assassinated in 1183 and this led to the death of Andronicus Commenus who was the real voice behind the throne. Alexius II goes on to consolidate his power and position. As a result the Byzantine Empire is not plagued by in-fighting and tyrannical Princes and proves to be more successful than in OTL.

Any thoughts, comments, ideas, etc... that people want to share would be greatly appreciated.
 
Seriously considering writing a timeline on an idea I have been playing with for the last couple of years. I have three P.o.Ds which occur.

The first P.o.D.

What if Richard the Lionheart of England dies in 1186 instead of his younger brother Geoffrey?

In this Alternate Time Line Geoffrey becomes King of England in 1189 when King Henry II dies (he died in 1189 in OTL). In order to keep John raising rebellion, Geoffrey sends him off to manage English territory in Ireland.

In a strategic move, Geoffrey sells (or just flat out gives) all of Southern France under English control (except for the border region with the Iberian peninsula) to King Phillip II of France. This allows England to do what it never could properly do in our timeline.

Plausible up to the point of "In a strategic move".

1) Aquitaine belongs to his mother, who is legally its duchess.

2) Aquitaine is part of France anyway, what is Philip selling? The dukedom (as in, the status of being duke)? Not his to sell. And this won't deal with Normandy, which Philip wants quite significantly - and which the Angevins have no reason to give up. The Angevins and Capets have problems to work out, though Philip presumably has less against Geoffrey personally than against Richard.

The Second P.o.D.

With the full support of English resources available to them, Aragon gains complete control of the Iberian peninsula somewhere between the years of 1195 and 1220.

The third P.o.D. takes place on the eastern side of the Mediterranean.
The full support? That's going to be tough to address plausibly on its own.

The Third P.o.D.

What if Alexios II Komnenos or Alexius II Comnenus Emperor of the Byzantine Empire managed to avoid being assassinated in 1183 and this led to the death of Andronicus Commenus who was the real voice behind the throne. Alexius II goes on to consolidate his power and position. As a result the Byzantine Empire is not plagued by in-fighting and tyrannical Princes and proves to be more successful than in OTL.

Any thoughts, comments, ideas, etc... that people want to share would be greatly appreciated.
Alexius is fourteen (in 1183), and not a very promising lad (when it comes to the perquisites of imperial government). But let's say he has some strong loyal supporters who don't see this as a chance to do what Andronicus did OTL. Stranger things have happened, so if you can find someone who meets this qualification (and please, don't just make up someone). Not sure where you'll find them - maybe the Lascaris or Vatazes families.

And of course, what was said about him as a kid may not mean very much (a young Achilles is not what you want in a ruler, especially a Byzantine one). Okay.

Obvious problems:

1) Hungary. Bela wants the stuff Manuel incorporated into the empire that "properly belongs" to Hungary on his side of the border. This is an easy enough deal to make and deal with satisfyingly, but it does need to be addressed. Not doing so may have another rival/enemy on the border, and the Byzantines don't need one.

2) Bulgaria is not feeling very happy about being part of the empire. This isn't beyond solution, but increased taxation might cause a rebellion like OTL. And you will need to collect taxes vigorously to afford dealing with the other eight problems - not necessarily more so here than anywhere else, but...

3) Serbia is independent in all but name, or full out independent, at this point. Yet another place to need to be reminded the emperor is in charge.

4) The Imperial bureaucracy needs some purging, if hopefully more gently than Andronicius did OTL. And the military aristocracy might need to be taken down a peg. You can guess how well this will go over.

5) Venice still remembers what Manuel did. This isn't dire, but it isn't helpful. If the massacre of the Latins has happened, that's going to be yet another tangle.

6) The HRE is a problem. A serious problem.

7) Did we mention the Seljuks are posing a problem to the Byzantine control of coastal and western Anatolia? This isn't good.

8) Norman Sicily.

9) The general exhaustion by overextension of the empire after Manuel I. It isn't beyond the empire's means to recover, but Alexius will need to move very skillfully to handle this and very patiently.

10) The Levant. So many problems. For starters, Saladin. And the prince of Antioch is Alexius's maternal uncle. And the succession to the kingdom of Jerusalem. And Cicilian Armenia (counted in with the Levant for convenience). And the Third Crusade is coming up, meaning Barbarossa will be entering the Empire by land. If this doesn't make you curse the Franks for ever inventing the ideas of crusade, you're going to do so by the time he's exited again. And that's if he behaves. And did we mention that Cyprus has a cousin of your father usurping control? Just for kicks and confusion? Yeah, it does. You can't even trust your own family.

11) None of these will wait while Alexius deals with any given problem. He has the decidedly enjoyable opportunity to face all ten things pretty much at once, and delaying any one thing will not make it easier.


It isn't impossible. But you'd need an unusually talented and lucky emperor to overcome them. And then there are the issues of getting married and leaving sons and all the mundane work of being emperor.

My timeline assumes an older Alexius who comes to the throne in a slightly better situation than OTL, so you might want to look at it (only done through to Barbarossa entering the principality of Antioch).

But all of these are very serious, and wrestling with them will to one extent or another use up Alexius's reign. And that's if he succeeds. Failure probably won't be quite as bad as OTL (1204 being a worse-than-it-should-have-been set of events), but it'll be more than bad enough.

But I strongly advise writing this timeline, even if it doesn't go as far as you hoped (Aragon not dominating Iberia, for instance) - its a good era for exploring alt-outcomes in multiple places.
 
Seems that I am going to have to scrap the third PoD then. There is just to much for Alexius to deal with to ever have my plans for the Byzantines go like I want them.

Eleanor cannot do very much to influence what Geoffrey does and does not do with Aquitaine. I see no reason that Geoffrey would release her from confinement. She held very little if any love for him, and I am not quite sure how he felt about her. But Geoffrey was a daddy's boy even though he did rebel against his father. But I give that over to the inexperience and rashness of youth. Also I am sure he was easily influenced by his older brothers.

The whole deal of Geoffrey giving most of the English territory in Southern France to King Phillip II is designed to tie up the French into consolidating that region under their control, while Geoffrey uses English money and troops to support Aragon for dominance over the Iberian Peninsula.

What I envisoned is a six way war on the Iberian peninsula between Castille, Navarre, Spain, Portugal, Aragon, and the Almohads. The Almohads manage to fully defeat Spain, but then are attacked by an alliance of Castille, Navarre, Portugal, and Aragon which did occur in our timeline without the defeat of Spain. Aragon is stronger is this timeline due to English support and eventually manage to gain control of the entire peninsula.
 
Seems that I am going to have to scrap the third PoD then. There is just to much for Alexius to deal with to ever have my plans for the Byzantines go like I want them.

Well, what are you looking for? Just because Alexius can't restore the Byzantine Empire to its 1025 borders in his lifetime doesn't mean he can't deal with the problems and leave his sons or grandsons able to fulfill the dream.

So more specifics would help me in seeing how much you can address this - I definitely think a solution is possible, but Alexius holding it all together is going to be a great accomplishment.

Eleanor cannot do very much to influence what Geoffrey does and does not do with Aquitaine. I see no reason that Geoffrey would release her from confinement. She held very little if any love for him, and I am not quite sure how he felt about her. But Geoffrey was a daddy's boy even though he did rebel against his father. But I give that over to the inexperience and rashness of youth. Also I am sure he was easily influenced by his older brothers.

She is, however, the duchess. Not him. He has zip in the way of authority to deal with it. I'm not familiar enough with his personality to address this - it sounds plausible enough to run with for alt-history purposes.

I suppose you could say he claims he has her consent, but I imagine the Aquitaine nobility won't react well to it - which is a problem for him, not Philip.

The whole deal of Geoffrey giving most of the English territory in Southern France to King Phillip II is designed to tie up the French into consolidating that region under their control, while Geoffrey uses English money and troops to support Aragon for dominance over the Iberian Peninsula.

What I envisoned is a six way war on the Iberian peninsula between Castille, Navarre, Spain, Portugal, Aragon, and the Almohads. The Almohads manage to fully defeat Spain, but then are attacked by an alliance of Castille, Navarre, Portugal, and Aragon which did occur in our timeline without the defeat of Spain. Aragon is stronger is this timeline due to English support and eventually manage to gain control of the entire peninsula.

There is no "Spain" at this point. Or rather, there is no kingdom of Spain at this point.

I can see eventual control of the peninsula if Castile-Leon is broken somehow or another and the Almohads are unable to prevail decisively, but it would be a very long term process - and why England's kings would invest the time and money into being a loyal and vigorously supportive ally through it at the expense of their goals needs some explanation.
 
You are right it should be called Leon, that is my fault.

As to the why addressing English support Aragon, I do not yet have an answer. I know that they supported them in our timeline, but I forgot their motives. I've been scouring the web for the last half hour and still have not found the answer.

The plan for Alexius was to push the Byzantine Empire's boundries to the north and east. To the north I had their territory extend all the way around the Black Sea, and the area between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea. I had them in part of Persia along with the Khwarezmian Empire controlling the rest. I had them in a three way alliance with the Khwarezmian Empire and Saladin's Empire (loosely).
 
You are right it should be called Leon, that is my fault.

As to the why addressing English support Aragon, I do not yet have an answer. I know that they supported them in our timeline, but I forgot their motives. I've been scouring the web for the last half hour and still have not found the answer.

Well, you could probably have a situation where England sides with Aragon in Iberia in exchange for help in France, but probably not a long term full out commitment kind of alliance.

Still, Geoffrey and...whoever it is, Peter? as allies wouldn't be impossible, and might greatly help Aragon's position. From there it would depend on how much changes. A weaker Leon-Castile (or two separate kingdoms if they break up/are divided, which wouldn't be unlikely) might give Aragon a chance in how events unfold.

The plan for Alexius was to push the Byzantine Empire's boundries to the north and east. To the north I had their territory extend all the way around the Black Sea, and the area between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea. I had them in part of Persia along with the Khwarezmian Empire controlling the rest. I had them in a three way alliance with the Khwarezmian Empire and Saladin's Empire (loosely).

Hm.

http://historymedren.about.com/library/atlas/natmapeurse1180.htm

Assuming Alexius lives another half century (so dying at about the same age as his great-grandfather) until 1233, he might be able to retake much of Anatolia or even Armenia - but I can't see why or how he'd go for Alania (the area between the Black Sea and the Caspian). or circling the Black Sea, let alone extending into Persia.

The Empire might manage most of that eventually with this as the start, sure, but not this quickly.

I do think this is an idea worth exploring - the late 12th century offers possibilities for many states.
 
I don't see Geofrey being a very successful king if he goes about deliberately dismantaling everything his forefathers had built and losing all the revenue that comes with the European territories his family controls. Not only would he look woefully weak, enough for foreign powers to look down upon him, the assembled nobility of his courts would rebel. such a scenario seems to be a surefire way of either putting John on the throne, or an invitation for some distant relation to take power. Everyone, from London to Constantinople, would see him either as at best incompetent, or worst of all completely insane.

Such a scenario would likely end with Geoff rotting in a foreign dungeon or his head being cut off.
 
I don't understand the mindset behind selling southern France in option 1. Aside from what Elfwine pointed out about Geoffrey having no legal right to determine Aquitaine's ownership, the very idea of selling such a huge area of land as NOT part of a disastrous peace treaty makes little sense. In this period the English considered themselves to have a huge advantage over the French and indeed they were right. Selling up now would be a public declaration that they thought themselves incompetant at holding land. No king sold land to avoid wars - it made your vassals lose faith in you, made your enemies look down on you, and it got you deposed for being weak. It would be comparable to a Pope declaring a crusade, seeing a Christian army lose one small battle, then writing a humiliating letter to the Muslims apologising for invading and declaring that all Christians must abandon the fight. Not only that, the only threat to England at this point was not Philip of France's armies but his diplomatic nous at splitting up the English royals. By selling France Geoffrey would be declaring that he didn't believe himself able to defeat Philip's mind games before Philip even took his first action. It would be a humiliation.

I could also point put that Philip would not need to spend long consolidating his rule anyway, giving Geoffrey no time to make his play anyway, and Geoffrey would know that. And it would never prevent war with France anyhow. So long as the English owned land in France and had not subjugated and belittled the King of France, there could never be peace for long.
 
Top