Succesfull Andronikos I. Komnenos ?!

[Consul Arrianus]

The last Komnenos?


WI the assassination of Isaak Angelos didn't fail?




This is my first TL, i just registered yesterday, so i hope i didn't do a bunch of errors. Hope you enjoy!!!


The failed assassination of Isaak Angelos created a sudden revolt against Andronikos I., so what if the assassination didn't fail (so no revolt, maybe later) and Andronikos succeds with his plan to erase the nobility of Byzantium while something like a state banquet? Of course those how survives will fight him and the Normans are there too, but Andronikos is not a bad general and i think it might be possible that he would risk it to leave Konstatinople to beat the Normans like Heraklios I. did in the war against Persia. I expect him to stop the Normanns in the mountains between Thracia and Macedonia with only sixthousand soldiers. After that the Normans will get serious supply problems and have to withdraw. While heading back the Byzantines force the Normans into a guerrilla war. With that, no supply and some plagues (so many people at one place, so they will get sooner or later ill) most of the Norman army dies. After getting rid of most of the Normans Andronikos searches and finds the direct battle and wins, so the Normans are totally wiped out. With this victory he gains the support of biggest part of the population and the army. In the following civil war of Andronikos against the rest of the nobility the Byzantine Empire gets weaker, but on the long therm the central gouvernment gets more and more power and is able to administrate the whole empire and hasn't to depend on the aristocrats. Moreover the Byzantine Empire will be in an condition like under Theophilos I. and an byzantine uprising is now not unlikely, even a new Byzantine fleet and everything else...


-inspired by One speech is all it takes to save an Empire!!!!A tl, but i don't believe the aristocrats will just change their opinion because of a speech, sorry

 

[Elfwine]

I think by this point its too late. Andronicus, bless his heart, has gone mad.

And stopping the Normans with only six thousand soldiers? I have a high opinion of the Byzantine army, but not that high.

 

[Consul Arrianus]

Well, the general (i think it was a Bardas) under Isaak II. Angelos did actually stop the Normans, so it is possible. And about the madness of Andronikos, didn't you think this was just propaganda of Issak II.?

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Hey there- welcome to the forum!

I'd advise you wait for at least a couple of months before starting a TL. Post on threads, have a learn how it's all done, and then you'll be better prepared to launch a really quality product!

 

[Consul Arrianus]

Wow, it didn't need a long time to get responses of the most famous byzantinophilics, i'm deeply impressed. I have been following this forum about 2 months and reading its threads, especially those of Elfwine and Basileus Giorgios, without registration. Well, so i know some things. In my free time i read a lot about Byzantium and even my school-leaving examination was about Byzantium and the crusades. So i wanted to change history and Andronikos is one of my favorite emperors. I don't mind to wait and learn how to write a TL. But i wanted some reply to my idea. Thank you in advance.

 

[Elfwine]

Stopping them is one thing, it's just the "six thousand men" part. You're going to need a larger army - fortunately Andronicus should be able to assemble one.

My suggestion if you want him successful is picking a POD where he doesn't go mad with paranoia, and from there, is less deeply unpopular.

He's still going to be disliked, but a strong, harsh but fair ruler is going to go further than one who is out to destroy the aristocracy like a Byzantine Vlad the Impaler.

Still, good subject to work with. The Byzantine situation is poor, but not doomed - and Andronicus (as you can see, I prefer the Latinized spellings) at his best was a very good man to address the problems.

Killing his nephew and such is still going to cause problems, but maybe, just maybe, he can deal with that.

 

[Constantinos]

hey consul I'm very happy you were inspired by my tl. However to get rid of the nobility would be well difficult. They are extremely entrenched and the military aristocracy is by this point at the height of its power. It is doable however but very difficult and needs some good PODs.

 

[Consul Arrianus]

„Stopping them is one thing, it's just the "six thousand men" part. You're going to need a larger army - fortunately Andronicus should be able to assemble one.“




Guess you're right, if Andronicus/Andronikos (better use the latin or the greek name??? to be honest i like the latin names more, too) fears a revolt, he will take the whole army with him. Any suggestions how strong his forces should be?




„He's still going to be disliked, but a strong, harsh but fair ruler is going to go further than one who is out to destroy the aristocracy like a Byzantine Vlad the Impaler.“




Further than what? I guess he is busy with holding the crown and save the empire?, but of course i would like it to make him to be an extraordinary good emperor.^^ Next point on the byzantine campaign should be regaining the Balkan, am i right? After that southern Italy and Syria.


I'm still hoping for more suggestions and representations. Thanks to all of you

 

[Consul Arrianus]

hey consul I'm very happy you were inspired by my tl. However to get rid of the nobility would be well difficult. They are extremely entrenched and the military aristocracy is by this point at the height of its power. It is doable however but very difficult and needs some good PODs.

Hey, glad to hear something from you

When i was reading your speech of Andronicus i thought i would be quite strange for someone who wants to get rid of the nobility to team up with them, but your right you are the one who inspired me.

 

[Elfwine]

Guess you're right, if Andronicus/Andronikos (better use the latin or the greek name??? to be honest i like the latin names more, too) fears a revolt, he will take the whole army with him. Any suggestions how strong his forces should be?

I'd say 15-25,000 men would be a pretty good sized army to take with him, given the period.

And use either as long as you're consistent, BG uses the Greek spelling, I use the Latin spelling, and I don't remember off the top of my head for basileus444 (the only other member with a timeline in progress) - I think it's Greek.

Further than what? I guess he is busy with holding the crown and save the empire?, but of course i would like it to make him to be an extraordinary good emperor.^^ Next point on the byzantine campaign should be regaining the Balkan, am i right? After that southern Italy and Syria.

Further than he did OTL. More successful, less enemies. And yes, dealing with Serbia and Hungary needs to happen soonish - one way or another. Bulgaria is a potential problem too, though not immediately. And then there's Anatolia. Southern Italy can be ignored, Syria can be put as a secondary priority, but the Empire has to secure Anatolia.

Andronicus is in his sixties - a vigorous man still, but he won't have more than ten years or so even if things go well, I think. Maybe twenty. So the quality of his heir is going to matter - and I don't know the first thing about his sons. His grandsons, just look up the "empire" of Trebizond, although they may not be quite the same in this situation as they were OTL.

I'm still hoping for more suggestions and representations. Thanks to all of you

I presume you've read at least part of it already if you recognize me as a big Byzantine fan, but read my timeline - although its going to be revised and restarted to take some things into consideration better than they were the first time round, and straighten out the presentation.

The Third Crusade is going to be either a headache or an opportunity (probably the former even if it is the latter - damn pillaging Germans), and making sure Lesser Armenia/Cilicia and Cyprus are kept within the Empire will take effort.

But its not insolvable. Just takes energy, ability, and level headedness. John II is a good example of these qualities, IMO.

BG will probably tease me over liking John the Bore, but he was a good Emperor.

http://www.ime.gr/chronos/09/en/index.html - the end of the Middle period
http://www.ime.gr/chronos/10/en/index.html - and beginning of the Late period
should be useful to you.

 

[Consul Arrianus]

„I'd say 15-25,000 men would be a pretty good sized army to take with him, given the period.“


Well, i thought about 20,000 men.




„And then there's Anatolia. Southern Italy can be ignored, Syria can be put as a secondary priority, but the Empire has to secure Anatolia.“


Isn't there a problem? I mean there are living nomadic people. Either you are completely annihilate them, what might be prolematic (and what do you want with unpopulated land?) or you have to military controll these tribes for at least 25-50 years to bring culture to them, which means big parts of your army are not ready for use. I think the reconquest of Anatolia has to wait till the Byzantine Empire is again a superpower. Alexios, Johannes and even Manuel were unable to regain it.


To souther Italy: Don't you have to control Italy to secure the Balkan? The Normans are raiding these territories periodicaly.




„Andronicus is in his sixties - a vigorous man still, but he won't have more than ten years or so even if things go well, I think. Maybe twenty. So the quality of his heir is going to matter - and I don't know the first thing about his sons. His grandsons, just look up the "empire" of Trebizond, although they may not be quite the same in this situation as they were OTL.“


I would give him 20 years, but his co-emperor an son Johannes is pretty unknown and we don't know much of him or do you have some sources?




„The Third Crusade is going to be either a headache or an opportunity (probably the former even if it is the latter - damn pillaging Germans), and making sure Lesser Armenia/Cilicia and Cyprus are kept within the Empire will take effort.“


If the HRE Frederik I is crossing the Empire what will he do, i suppose at this time Andronikos is still war with the aristcrats. Will Andronikos be able to use Frederik for his interests? I guess Frederik is far to good to get involved in innerbyzantine conflicts, or could he profit from these civilwar?


Hope for more comments and inspiration

 

[Elfwine]

„I'd say 15-25,000 men would be a pretty good sized army to take with him, given the period.“


Well, i thought about 20,000 men.

Should be sufficient. William's forces seem greatly overestimated in terms of numbers (seriously, eighty thousand men? ).

Isn't there a problem? I mean there are living nomadic people. Either you are completely annihilate them, what might be prolematic (and what do you want with unpopulated land?) or you have to military controll these tribes for at least 25-50 years to bring culture to them, which means big parts of your army are not ready for use. I think the reconquest of Anatolia has to wait till the Byzantine Empire is again a superpower. Alexios, Johannes and even Manuel were unable to regain it.

The difficulty doesn't change that the Empire has to control it in order to be even a secure great or middlin' power. John (not so much his father, and far more than his son) campaigned there and tried to push the Byzantine frontier further east for a reason - if this ties up military resources, consider the consequences of not regaining it to the available military resources the Empire has.

To souther Italy: Don't you have to control Italy to secure the Balkan? The Normans are raiding these territories periodicaly.

No, raiders are not the same as threatening the hold of the empire on the Balkans - there, the big problem is this guy (and I'm not sure if he's 'taken care of" you have no one else, he's just the OTL man): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Nemanja

I would give him 20 years, but his co-emperor an son Johannes is pretty unknown and we don't know much of him or do you have some sources?

Not even hints. He's (as of his father's usurpation) in his early twenties, that's it.

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BYZANTIUM%2010571204.htm#_Toc264475977 Good site to look at, although not very useful for the lives of the individuals named.

If the HRE Frederik I is crossing the Empire what will he do, i suppose at this time Andronikos is still war with the aristcrats. Will Andronikos be able to use Frederik for his interests? I guess Frederik is far to good to get involved in innerbyzantine conflicts, or could he profit from these civilwar?


Hope for more comments and inspiration

Frederick has other priorities. If Andronicus attempts to interfere, expect a response like Frederick's response to Isaac II OTL.

It's not a matter of good or bad, just having other things to do - although how Andronicus does here may influence what he tells Henry (his son) and what Henry VI does as emperor.

 

[Consul Arrianus]

"Should be sufficient. William's forces seem greatly overestimated in terms of numbers (seriously, eighty thousand men? )."


What is history without glorious victories?





"The difficulty doesn't change that the Empire has to control it in order to be even a secure great or middlin' power. John (not so much his father, and far more than his son) campaigned there and tried to push the Byzantine frontier further east for a reason - if this ties up military resources, consider the consequences of not regaining it to the available military resources the Empire has."


Well, the results of John's campaigns weren't worth the effort he invested, am i right? He just fought them a little at the border, mostly at the coast. The reason why they weren't able to get Anatolia back is the same, why they weren't able to conquer Russia: steppe




"No, raiders are not the same as threatening the hold of the empire on the Balkans - there, the big problem is this guy (and I'm not sure if he's 'taken care of" you have no one else, he's just the OTL man): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Nemanja"

Yes, of course i mean first you have to get the balkan back, second you have to secure it.
Nothing was more dangerous than the Normans of southern Italy. If general Alexios Bardas hadn't beat the Normans near Constantinopolis they might have had sieged the city.
At this time in Anatolia there were just some nomadic tribes, not a organized state like the Normans, who are serious about destroying the Byzantine Empire.






So some expections of the TL


-1185-1192: Anronikos I. saves the empire and annihilate the nobility, so the central gouvernment is more powerfull


-1198-1205: slowly regain of the balkan.


-1205-1225: Androknikos's son John III gets emperor.


-1205-1209: battles with the Normans and Seljuqs (no results)


-1212-1219: regain of the whole balkan, Danube is border


-1225: John III. dies


-1225-1238: John's son Alexios III. gets emperor.


-1227: failed invasion of southern Italy, wars against Hungary, Georgia, Principality of Antioch and the Seljuqs.


-1228-1238: wars against Hungary (no results), Georgia (some border corrections), Principality of Antioch (annexed 1232 and lost to the Seljuqs 1236) and the Seljuqs (no results)


-1238: Alexios III. dies


-1238-1251: Andronikos II.: some wars against Seljuqs, Hungary and Normans, no results


-1251: Andronikos II. dies


-1251-1254: John. IV.: nothing happens


-1254: John IV. dies


-1254-1269: Manuel II.: failed invasion of southern Italy, wars against the Mongols


-1269: Manuel II. dies


-1269-1273: Andronikos III.: war with the mongols ends


-1273:Andronikos III. dies


-1273-1287: Georgios I.: the somehow other sicilian vespers (sicilia gets to Byzantium, 1282), after that civil war with his brother John V.

 

[Elfwine]

What is history without glorious victories?

Depressing.

Well, the results of John's campaigns weren't worth the effort he invested, am i right? He just fought them a little at the border, mostly at the coast. The reason why they weren't able to get Anatolia back is the same, why they weren't able to conquer Russia: steppe

Actually, I'd say they were very much worth the effort - the empire is considerably better off in 1143 vs. 1118 precisely because of John's efforts here. And Anatolia is not really steppe, just a great plateau.

The reason the Empire couldn't take the area back is a lack of continuous effort - thank you so much Manuel "Latinlover". Comnenus.

Yes, of course i mean first you have to get the balkan back, second you have to secure it.
Nothing was more dangerous than the Normans of southern Italy. If general Alexios Bardas hadn't beat the Normans near Constantinopolis they might have had sieged the city.
At this time in Anatolia there were just some nomadic tribes, not a organized state like the Normans, who are serious about destroying the Byzantine Empire.

Don't forget the Seljuk Sultanate, and especially don't forget the importance of controlling Anatolia both strategically and for making use of its resources - although the Empire does control the richest/most fertile part anyway, the rest is very, very important to securing the East.

So some expections of the TL


-1185-1192: Anronikos I. saves the empire and annihilate the nobility, so the central gouvernment is more powerfull

Andronicus will annihilate the nobility when Hell freezes over. Best case scenario is that they're cowed into submission.

-1198-1205: slowly regain of the balkan.


-1205-1225: Androknikos's son John III gets emperor.


-1205-1209: battles with the Normans and Seljuqs (no results)

What, the Byzantines can't take advantage of the civil war after Kilij Arslan's death? This sucks.

-1212-1219: regain of the whole balkan, Danube is border


-1225: John III. dies


-1225-1238: John's son Alexios III. gets emperor.


-1227: failed invasion of southern Italy, wars against Hungary, Georgia, Principality of Antioch and the Seljuqs.


-1228-1238: wars against Hungary (no results), Georgia (some border corrections), Principality of Antioch (annexed 1232 and lost to the Seljuqs 1236) and the Seljuqs (no results)


-1238: Alexios III. dies


-1238-1251: Andronikos II.: some wars against Seljuqs, Hungary and Normans, no results


-1251: Andronikos II. dies


-1251-1254: John. IV.: nothing happens


-1254: John IV. dies


-1254-1269: Manuel II.: failed invasion of southern Italy, wars against the Mongols


-1269: Manuel II. dies


-1269-1273: Andronikos III.: war with the mongols ends


-1273:Andronikos III. dies


-1273-1287: Georgios I.: the somehow other sicilian vespers (sicilia gets to Byzantium, 1282), after that civil war with his brother John V.

Some interesting stuff here, I think fleshed out you have a pretty good timeline going.

Also, the Balkans are split between the area the Byzantines control (or should, such as Serbia) and Hungary - if the Byzantines want Bosnia and Croatia, they have to beat the Hungarians.

Meanwhile, unless Bulgaria rebels successful, the border is the Danube, this is just maintaining the status quo.

 

[Consul Arrianus]

„Andronicus will annihilate the nobility when Hell freezes over. Best case scenario is that they're cowed into submission.“


Well, when Andronikos is pushing the Normans back, he might just refuse to give the liberated land back to the nobles and keep it for the state or himself. And in the following civil war it is possible to annihilate just some of the noble families. What Andronikos has to make is to get the upper hand and get back as much land as he can. Maybe he will reintroduce the laws of the middle period, to save the peasants? Is it possible to restore the theme system?




„Don't forget the Seljuk Sultanate, and especially don't forget the importance of controlling Anatolia both strategically and for making use of its resources - although the Empire does control the richest/most fertile part anyway, the rest is very, very important to securing the East.“


I wanted to wait until Timur destroys the Turks (Battle of Ankara 1402), so the Byzantines just can take over the destroyed Anatolia.

 

[cimon]

Well, the general (i think it was a Bardas) under Isaak II. Angelos did actually stop the Normans, so it is possible. And about the madness of Andronikos, didn't you think this was just propaganda of Issak II.?

General Vranas actually...

 

[Elfwine]

Well, when Andronikos is pushing the Normans back, he might just refuse to give the liberated land back to the nobles and keep it for the state or himself. And in the following civil war it is possible to annihilate just some of the noble families. What Andronikos has to make is to get the upper hand and get back as much land as he can. Maybe he will reintroduce the laws of the middle period, to save the peasants? Is it possible to restore the theme system?

To a point. A lot of this is going to have to be built starting in his reign and hoping his successors can keep it going. Andronicus can't do it, him and his descendants might at least find a workable system.

I wanted to wait until Timur destroys the Turks (Battle of Ankara 1402), so the Byzantines just can take over the destroyed Anatolia.

That's not going to work. Butterflies aside.

The Seljuk sultanate is in a fair state of disorder at this point (the 1190s), so if Andronicus and/or John are able to take advantage of that, that should go far.

Also, to belatedly answer the question on madness: No, I don't. Andronicus was paranoid at best.

Understandably, but Isaac took advantage of the situation, he didn't need to invent things.

 

[Consul Arrianus]

Some moreexpections of the TL



-John V.: 1287-1303: reforms the gouvermental system, laws and taxes, defends the east (some lost provinces), many diplomatic contacts with the west


-Theodora I.?:1303-1304: mother of Alexios IV., want to take the guardianship for her son, gets soon overthrown by supporters of Alexios


-Alexios IV: 1304-1337: the „Turk-Slayer“, new walls for Contantinople and the border. Negotitation about fixing the schism. Succesfull war against the Italian cities, Venice gets destroyed? War against the Normans (Southern Italy is annexed). Economical and military zenith. Great war against the Turks (regain of Anatolia and Antioch).


-Andronikos IV. 1337-1339 civil war, Anatolia gets independent (turkish state), tries to kill all members of the royal family, innerbyzantine revolts, Antioch gets independent under an royal Byzantine (new byzantine state).


-Manuel III: 1339-1340: young and weak child, civil war goes on


-Basileios III: 1340-1348: decadent emperor, civil war continues, innerbyzantine war reaches its climax, killed by his wife, Black Death arrives


-Irene II: 1348-1349: civil war continues, new uprising of the civil war


-Anna I: 1349-1350: civil war continues, nobles trie to influence Anna, military takes over the power


-John VI.: 1350-1352: decadent emperor, killed by the generals


-Michael VIII.: 1352-1357: succesfull war against the Mamlucks and Turks, Crimea is annexed, defeated in the west (lost territories in Italy), most powerfull general takes over the crown








I want to end with a byzantine republic if possible, so what are possible routes?

???Some early civil rights --> revolt against an military regime --> first republic ???

 

[Consul Arrianus]

Still hoping for more comments

 

[Elfwine]

The only thing I can think of - as I have no idea how you'd create a Byzantine republic - is that Alexius IV is too late for a successful Byzantine reconquest of Anatolia. That is, if it's taken them that long, it's not a good sign.

Also, how are the Normans still in charge of Southern Italy? Henry VI must have failed in his efforts here (only a little after the POD and unlikely to be affected by it).