WI Andronikos Kommenos remained Emperor of the Romans and was not executed

In this tl Andronikos manages to retain the throne, he was an able commander, brilliant politition, great statesmen, however in 1185 due to his growing paranoia Byzantium bece a terror state and he was executed.... But what if he remained emperor and had a sane mind in 1184 could he have prevented the 4th crusade, what would have happened had he remained a sane emperor till old age when he dies peacefully what would happen to the Byzantines.
 
In this tl Andronikos manages to retain the throne, he was an able commander, brilliant politition, great statesmen, however in 1185 due to his growing paranoia Byzantium bece a terror state and he was executed.... But what if he remained emperor and had a sane mind in 1184 could he have prevented the 4th crusade, what would have happened had he remained a sane emperor till old age when he dies peacefully what would happen to the Byzantines.


I don't really now that much about the crusades especially the 4th through 7th but I do remember is that the venitions wanted more trade and that constaninople was a good area of trade. So I think that if Andronikos can remain in a clear head he can help the byzantine empire become a bit more powerful just so the venetions don't get any ideas. Also since he is a good statesman he might help with the governement to make it less curropt and I think what was one of the reasons for the downfall of the byzantines was due to them overtaxing their areas so he might make a reform on that and if he could he can also help the people out by creating a office or governement which gives the people a bit more say.
 
Even if Adronicus wasn't deposed an killed he would die soon. He was pretty old when he died, aged over 60. With him the Empire would decline because of his personality. He ruined his reign when he killed the young Alexius II. But, if Adronicus is a more peaceful guy and lived until his early 70s we could have a Triple Monarchy style in Constantinople, ruled by Alexius II (son of Manuel I), John III and Manuel II (both sons of Adronicus). :)

I keep imagining what would have happened if Manuel and Maria gave birth to Alexius 10 years earlier. We would have a possibly competent Emperor in his early 20s with the Empire relativly stable, even after Myriokephalon.

Oh, and if Adronicus was more peaceful and kept Maria as Empress-Regent, there would be no Latin Massacre and even no Sack of Constantinople by the 4th Crusade! :)
 
Even if Adronicus wasn't deposed an killed he would die soon. He was pretty old when he died, aged over 60. With him the Empire would decline because of his personality. He ruined his reign when he killed the young Alexius II. But, if Adronicus is a more peaceful guy and lived until his early 70s we could have a Triple Monarchy style in Constantinople, ruled by Alexius II (son of Manuel I), John III and Manuel II (both sons of Adronicus). :)

I keep imagining what would have happened if Manuel and Maria gave birth to Alexius 10 years earlier. We would have a possibly competent Emperor in his early 20s with the Empire relativly stable, even after Myriokephalon.

Oh, and if Adronicus was more peaceful and kept Maria as Empress-Regent, there would be no Latin Massacre and even no Sack of Constantinople by the 4th Crusade! :)
Ooh awesome.... But you see, Andronikos had a son, Andronikos would have an awesome rule, I mean look at his potential, the Kommenians were the best rulers of Constantinople, while in decline, they reversed the decline, should there reign continue think of all the possibilities, also Andronikos was in the midst of reforming Byzantine gov, would anyone be interested in a tl about him :):)
 
Ooh awesome.... But you see, Andronikos had a son, Andronikos would have an awesome rule, I mean look at his potential, the Kommenians were the best rulers of Constantinople, while in decline, they reversed the decline, should there reign continue think of all the possibilities, also Andronikos was in the midst of reforming Byzantine gov, would anyone be interested in a tl about him :):)


You know I am super interested in roman TL's pre imperial and even more interested in post imperial if anyone is interested in making a TL about him you have got my full support:)
 
I am interested in the idea of a TL about Andronikos Komnenos. I've been thinking for some time about writing a historical novel about him; I even started planning it.

Two questions:

Has another TL been written about Andronikos on this site before? Certain PODs (especially Roman/Byzantine ones) come up again and again and again.

Is anyone out there familiar with a novel (in the English language) which features Andronikos as the hero (or anti-hero)? If so, I would love to hear from you.
 
I am interested in the idea of a TL about Andronikos Komnenos. I've been thinking for some time about writing a historical novel about him; I even started planning it.

Two questions:

Has another TL been written about Andronikos on this site before? Certain PODs (especially Roman/Byzantine ones) come up again and again and again.

Is anyone out there familiar with a novel (in the English language) which features Andronikos as the hero (or anti-hero)? If so, I would love to hear from you.

No TL has been written about him, can't think of any nivels either.... However if your willin let's collaborate on Making a Tl abou him, dint you feel he has so much potential....:);)
 
Andronikos Komnenos

From what I recall of his regin, he was extremely unpopular in what remained of Byzantine Asia minor. He took strong measures against the aristocracy there, resulting in frequent revolts and considerable damage to the country. Having him reign longer would only have worsened conditions there.
 

Germaniac

Donor
Just because he was a Kommenos does not mean that he could magically revive the empire. He was an old man by the time of his death, and can't be expected to survive much longer, Hell Im surprised he lived as long as he did during his execution. Had he had a son earlier I don't think it would have changed his rule very much, as his anti-aristocracy were well cemented and this would likely be his downfall anyway.
 
I am interested in the idea of a TL about Andronikos Komnenos. I've been thinking for some time about writing a historical novel about him; I even started planning it.

Two questions:

Has another TL been written about Andronikos on this site before? Certain PODs (especially Roman/Byzantine ones) come up again and again and again.

Is anyone out there familiar with a novel (in the English language) which features Andronikos as the hero (or anti-hero)? If so, I would love to hear from you.
It would be very nice if you wrote a TL of your own, Megas! You have my full support and if you indeed begin to write it, you can count me as one of the readers *cough* and co-author *cough*. :)
 
No TL has been written about him, can't think of any nivels either.... However if your willin let's collaborate on Making a Tl abou him, dint you feel he has so much potential....:);)

Yes, he does have alot of potential especially if he doesn't spend so many wasted years in prison during Manuel I's reign.

He is an absolutely fascinating person: a serial womaniser (but one who generated remarkable loyalty from the women he betrayed), a general, a man of action, an adventurer, a political radical. He travelled probably further afield than any single Emperor (apart from maybe Manuel II Palaeologus who went as far as England), and visited Turkish Anatolia, the Crusader States, the Caucasus, Georgia - possibly Persia and Central Asia (I need to check in Nicetas Choniates about this) - Ukraine and Hungary.

But other posters are right to say that Andronikos was getting too old by the 1180s to make a big difference. If your POD is his early escape from prison in the 1150s, maybe he could have put his huge energy and intelligence into getting the throne earlier - however he does have Manuel I to contend with: one of the greatest (if not the greatest) of the Comnene emperors. So you would have to be a bit clever with your POD; or just have Manuel come to a 'sticky end' from an assassin or something...

I'm afraid I don't have enough time to do a full collaboration - I'm too busy with IE and CoJ as you know BC - but I can help with general stuff; and I will probably post short messages on this thread in support of what you do.

Good luck! :)
 

elder.wyrm

Banned
however he does have Manuel I to contend with: one of the greatest (if not the greatest) of the Comnene emperors.

This is an unpopular opinion, but I find Manuel to be mostly the beneficiary of sympathetic history, rather than having been actually that great of an Emperor. He was well-recorded and well-liked in the West, so the West remembered him and wrote about him for centuries to come.

His actual reign, however, was a disaster. At his ascension to the Throne of Emperors, the Empire was in recovery, slowly but surely regaining all the territory lost in 1071. A solid hold on the most populace parts of Anatolia were firmly back in hand, and the Turks were set on what seemed to be a permanent back peddle. Most importantly, the thing that MADE the Byzantine Empire the Byzantine Empire, the professional, standing army, was rebuilt and as strong as it had been since Manzikert.

But Manuel did a very good job of squandering the resources given to him. Instead of defending in the west and advancing in the east, he split his attention a little too much, advancing in both directions. He sacrificed the short border in the Balkans for territorial aggrandizement that, in the end, was fleeting and useless. He wasted money and time on a lavish life-style imported from the courts of the West and Outremer and, perhaps most importantly, he lost the rebuilt army of his father and grandfather at Myriokephalon.

He is the Alexander to John's Phillip. He had a lot of flash and pizazz, and SEEMS to have accomplished more, but he did all he did by standing on the shoulders of giants. Then he went ahead and tripped them all over. I truly believe that, had John not died in the 1140's, but instead lived until death of natural causes, the Empire would still be with us today. More than any other one person, the spend-thrift, flashy Manuel lelft the Empire in the vulnerable position that led to the Angeloi and, ultimately, the 4th Crusade.
 
For the most part you make some nice, well-argued, points; I'm usually a fan of historical revisionism - its how we learn new things and push back boundaries. :cool:

I'm sympathetic towards Manuel because he was a quite consummate politician, who reigned for a long, long time by any standards (let alone medieval) ones - and who presided over a period of profound change in the Empire. Arguably, he made the best of a difficult deal hemmed in by the dynamic energy of youthful Latin powers to the West and East. Although Myriokephalon was the disaster that overshadowed all his achievements, I do admire the style and elan with which he humiliated Reynald de Chatillon at Antoich: a true Byzantine potentate getting a last hurrah for ancient Roman dignity and gravitas in the face of uppity Latin warlords in Outremer... :)

I truly believe that, had John not died in the 1140's, but instead lived until death of natural causes, the Empire would still be with us today. More than any other one person, the spend-thrift, flashy Manuel lelft the Empire in the vulnerable position that led to the Angeloi and, ultimately, the 4th Crusade.

Still with us today? I do think that's taking the influence of one particular Emperor a bit too far... The question historians revisit again and again is whether "classical" Byzantine civilisation had a future from the 12th century after the teeming, land- and wealth-hungry nobles of Western Europe had set their astonished eyes on Constantinople for the first time as a group... I suspect not. I think a hybrid Byzantine-Latin culture (a la the Principality of Achaea, Venetian Candia or somewhere like Norman Sicily) might've had a chance to be born and spread but not a "classical" Byzantine one. Perhaps you can criticise Manuel for not going far enough with his 'Western' reforms?
 
Top