Their overthrow led to the rise of the incompetent house of Angelos, which failed to stop the Turks, Bulgarians, and Crusaders, and Isaac II Angelos' Latin-backed takeover attempt created the disaster that was the partition of the Byzantine Empire.
The damage done to the Roman state by the Angeloi was quite bad. Even if the Empire didn't suffer the indignity of the Fourth Crusade, its foundations were rotting away. The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople was the wrecking ball that came in brought down the dilapidated building. Perhaps if the Angeloi had been deposed at that time the Empire could have been save, but it was already a Herculean effort. One of the reason why the Latins couldn't take over the whole Empire was because by the time of Sack of the Imperial City, many provinces had already ceased to acknowledge the authority of the Emperor. Then again Theodore Laskaris was the son in law of Alexios III Angelos, and he had proven to be quite a skilled ruler in Niceaa holding down the fort against the Turks, Latins, and the Komnenoi. Its a high possibility that he likely would have attempted a program of reform in the Empire. The Fourth Crusade shattered the Empire and the Empire of 1204 paralles the Empire right before the Battle of Manzikert. Sure reformer Emperors like Issac I Komnenos emerged, but the corrupt elites forced them out of power. Thus the Romans were forced to suffer under Constantine X Doukas who left the Empire undefended when he utterly gutted the Empire 50,000 strong Amernian garrison right as the Turkish raiders began the incursions into Anatolia. He also debased the currency further, rendering the ancient and prized Roman Solidus (Nomismatta) which had been the Roman and European monetary standard since its creation by Constantine the Great utterly worthless. Similarly the Angeloi's nepotism and stunning ineptitude gutted the Empire's military, eroded its treasury, and ruined the integrity of the Central government with the decades long struggle that was the Komnenian Restoration being undone. Its very likely that Theodore Laskaris could have ended up as the 13th century Romanos IV.
Although the Komnenian invasion of Trebizond had already been in place even before the city had fallen. Many threw open their gates to Alexios Komnenos and David Komnenos. The two brothers were very capable military leaders with Alexios also proving to be worthy of his illustrious ancestor's name with his adminstrative skill being essential to laying the foundation of the Empire of Trebizond. The Komnenoi managed to take nearly the entirety of the Northern Anatolia for themselves. Its likely that they could have been even more successful with a civil war between the Laskarids and the Angeloi erupting. The Komneoi in otl had managed to take Sinope the most valuable port in Anatolia giving them access to the Black Sea fleet and trade making them a very strong power. With such a strong dynastic claim behind them, the Komnenoi were almost certainly guaranteed to emerge victorious in the struggle for the throne. Of course this didn't happen in otl because by chance Alexios I of Trebizond got captured when he went on a hunting trip where he was forced to cede Sinope to the Seljuk Turks after being tortured in front of the city's inhabitants. This could very well not happen and as a result the crisis of the late 12th and early 13th century could be seen as a brief period in history in which the future of the Komnenoi was uncertain with the Angeloi rule and incompetence being seen as a tiny footnote in the continued history of the Komnenian dynasty only overshadowed by the Macedonians (ie Basil II not Alexander the Great).
Would the Bulgarians still be able to enjoy so much success?
Most definitely not. The Angeloi under Issac II saw the mechanisms of the Byzantine state slowly start to slide further into disfunction. The Bulgarian revolt was mostly due to the oppressive and extortionate taxes levied by the Angeloi to fund their exravagances. The Asen brothers who were a Romano-Bulgarian noble family that had been well integrated into the Byzantine system appealed to the Emperor for a Pronoia. This would have eased the tax burden on Bulgaria while also still providing manpower to the Roman armies to help protect the Danubian border. Of course the Angeloi not only refused, but went on to utterly offend and humiliate the Asens which prompted to declare their own Bulgarian Empire. Keep in mind that this Second Bulgarian Empire was not really based on tensions between Greek and Bulgarian nationalism. These notions are an anachronism as Bulgarian nationalism as we know it only really emerged in the 18th century while Greek Nationalism largely centered around its Hellenic past rather than its richer and longer Roman history was only really a thing in the 19th century. The Bulgarian Empire was very much part of the Roman world along with Serbia with its rulers at various points in history adopting the title of Emperor of the Romans. Much of the accounts of Basil II being so cruel to Bulgaria was likely exaggerations made well after his death. After all Basil II after conquering Bulgaria was very magnanimous to them. He took care to respect their local customs, laws, and their institutions like the Slavic rite of the Orthodox Church. Though Basil's incompetent successors began undoing these changes which provoked revolts, but these were crushed by Roman armies with many recruited native Bulgarians in them. In fact under Alexios Komnenos, the Empire bounced back because Bulgaria was made into a second manpower pool. Bulgaria was largely left alone and began being somewhat peacefull hellenized due to it being well integrated in the Roman Empire.
If the Komnenoi keep their throne, its very likely that the Bulgarians stay as the misrule of the Angeloi that led to the revolt would not have occurred.
What about the Mongol Invasion? Would that affect the Byzantines differently?
Would this prolong or hurt the Byzantine Empire's survival? By how long? How?
Its not really guaranted that the Mongols would even travel to Anatolia. They only really destroyed the Khwarezmids after they killed Mongol envoys. Even if things go like in otl, the Romans would likely pay tribute to such a strong foe and even alllying with them against the Turks and other Neighboring powers. Alexios I Komnenos did this with the Pechenegs. The Cumans were used to utterly crush the Pecheneg army that started attacking Byzantium.
Very good questions and ideas. Yeah, he definitely wasn't the best Komnenos. While the overthrow of Andronikos and the subsequent killing of his family members would be hard to avoid, it would not be impossible. Perhaps, if he or his predecessors had managed to put the right people in the right places, the takeover could have avoided. Perhaps a Komnenid Emperor could have further centralized the Empire or improved measures designed to prevent such a coup. Or, something like the Georgian Expedition on a larger scale could have happened shortly after the coup, bringing into power the Komnenoi. Or, there is always dumb luck. Important conspirators could have died before the coup.
Andronikos almost had Issac II assassinated so if he dies that way, Andronikos is safe. Also if things like the fall of Thessalonika is avoided, the riots which saw him lose his throne likely would not have occurred.
First, you have to answer why was Andronikos overthrown, you have read about how harsh he was considered by nearly all classes. And that his son was immediately murdered by the troops he was commanding. How can that be avoided?
And if it is, he was apparently bent on destroying the aristocracy (not that bad an idea mind you), if he had succeeded, that creates some powerful changes politically as well as socially.
Well the thing about the aristocrats was that while they flourished under Manuel, it began to grow into a liability for the state. The court also began becoming decadent and corrupt especially with the unpopular regency of Manuel's Latinophile wife. Thus the people clamoured for a new energetic soldier Emperor to lead them after the Empire had suffered defeats in Anatolia. This was where Andronikos I came in. He was a handsome if not old, but very charismatic and distinguished commander coming to power. His purge of the aristocracy had it been successful, likely would have been compared to Basil II's whose similar crackdown solidified his reign. Basil II despite being a celebrated Emperor was also quite feared by his own people as well.
Would this prolong or hurt the Byzantine Empire's survival? By how long? How?
It would definitely prolong it, but its difficult to say how long. If Andronikos can live to ensure a peaceful transititon of power to his son and later his talented grandsons, its likely they Empire would be very secure with the Komnenian Restoration carrying on.
@Basileus_Komnenos comon your the expert here lol
I thank you for the compliment
@Goldensilver81.
Also if you guys are interested in a timeline exploring a Second Komnenian Restoration after the Fourth Crusade, I started one called
The House of Komnenos, Like a Phoenix From the Ashes, and Eastern Roman Timeline.
