WI Anna Komnena successfully overthrows John Komnenos

Leading armies doesn't necessarily make one a good emperor. And Irene accomplished quite a bit. She lost support because legitimacy was very important to the Byzantines, and she was not legitimate - and murdering your own (legitimate) son is not a way to win public acclaim. Compare that to Zoe, who was the legitimate empress, and who was the most utterly incompetent ruler in Byzantine history, but was beloved by everyone.

A competent and legitimate empress would have been formidable.

Comparing Anna with Zoe, though, is a comparison that simply doesn't work. Zoe was the last surviving member of a dynasty that had ruled for nearly two hundred years, and the niece of the greatest Emperor in centuries. Moreover, she was popular with the populace precisely because of her very incompetence- the fact that she wasn't allowed anywhere near the reigns of power by her various (underrated) husbands meant that she could become a convenient rallying post for all who were dissatisfied with the current Emperor, and wanted an easy way of getting rid of him, by trumpeting the legitimacy of the Macedonian Dynasty.

Anna, on the other hand, is the elder daughter of an aristocrat who himself came to power in a coup. The establishment of the Komnenid dynasty is still well within living memory, they don't have the huge span of time that membership of the Macedonian dynasty gave to Zoe. She'll have come to power violently, as Anna did, by killing her legitimate brother, who was reasonably popular with the citizenry for his benevolent and pious nature.

There is no doubt, in my mind, that an Empress Anna will be capable and ambitious- but then, so was Irene. Irene's successes were remarkable- she reconquered half the Balkans, and came very close to achieving the restoration of Constantinopolitan sovereignty over Rome. But she totally lacked popular legitimacy, and so will Anna Komnena.

EDIT: Regarding the issue of reconquering Anatolia, after the First Crusade, it dropped quite quickly down the Imperial list of priorities. The Sultans of Rum were seen as Imperial vassals, and thus part of the Roman Empire anyway, by Constantinople: and furthermore, they were generally rather more reliable as vassals than were the Hungarians or Crusaders. Much of the Komnenid period is, in my view, better understood as a succesion of campaigns to slap down uppity client states by the Komnenid Emperors: as opposed to a long, grand programme of systematic reconquest. In any case, the Empire did very well indeed without the Anatolian plateau: economic growth in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was higher than at any point since the sixth.
 
@Elfwine: I am pretty sure Manuel had some dealings with the Crusaders of Antioch right before Zengi died. Ah, Wiki has a section called "Manuel in Antioch." Also wiki says in 1146 he raided around Iconium.

Okay, so he didn't quite "flat out ignore" Anatolia. Still neglected it. Going from a little raiding in 1146 to the next major campaign being in 1176...

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
When you decide to take a hostile tone because I don't agree with you it makes me lose interest in discussing this with you.

If my wording came off as hostile, my apologies. I am a little annoyed, yes but I do not mean to be hostile.

What more do you expect from the Alexius's successor in those twenty-five years?

Expect as in, what do you think should have been achievable with with the resources available. No one faults John I for not retaking Egypt, for instance.

You seem to think Anna and Nikephoros could have done as well, fine, but you also seem to think that John didn't do enough.

Well, let's ask the question then: Why did Alexios chose the 5-year old John as his heir? Was is because of his administrative or martial talent? Or was it because of his sex?
Neither Anna or John at that point (Anna is eight or nine) has shown any sign one way or another, and Byzantium's history of ruling females hasn't been inspiring - looking at this as a question of stability as much as competence - at that point. If I was in Alexius's shoes, I'd feel rather less secure in naming Anna my heir based on that.

But I think I should have been clearer: Why did Alexius want John to succeed him in 1118? As in, why didn't he change his mind after seeing how his daughter was an exceptionally bright young woman? Saying it was only because she was born female seems incomplete.

I don't know the answer, which is why I'm asking this.

Basileus Giorgios said:
EDIT: Regarding the issue of reconquering Anatolia, after the First Crusade, it dropped quite quickly down the Imperial list of priorities. The Sultans of Rum were seen as Imperial vassals, and thus part of the Roman Empire anyway, by Constantinople: and furthermore, they were generally rather more reliable as vassals than were the Hungarians or Crusaders. Much of the Komnenid period is, in my view, better understood as a succesion of campaigns to slap down uppity client states by the Komnenid Emperors: as opposed to a long, grand programme of systematic reconquest. In any case, the Empire did very well indeed without the Anatolian plateau: economic growth in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was higher than at any point since the sixth.

This may be the wrong thread for it, but could you elaborate on this theory/understanding?
 
Last edited:

elder.wyrm

Banned
John wasn't a very capable general, he was a good (but cautious) strategist.

It's not even that (his strategy was unimaginative, though effective): He was just an astounding chief executive. He was the exactly correct man for the moment of history he was in. He was great at getting the very best use out of the scant resources he had available to him and a penny-pincher when it came to the treasury. He had a wise (and just as cautious) foreign policy. His seasonal campaigns into Anatolia were almost certainly the best and only way that the Romans could have pushed forward.

In other words, he was every inch his father's son and he, while not completely irreplacable, I don't think Anna and hubby could have quite measured up.

Unfortunately, John's reign is one of the least written about for the Comnenian period, so we don't have that much raw data on Anna's personality and efficacy. Something tells me, however, that if her own husband chose John over her, that she wasn't so stellar an Imperial prospect as would be necessary to improve over the outcome we get with John.

The only positive is that she might be better than Manuel and, so, take up a lot of his disastrous reign since, assumably, she wouldn't die at the young age of 42 like John did.
 
John died at fifty-six from what I can tell, not forty-two.

Anna died at seventy in 1153 (and probably wouldn't live much longer as empress - seventy is a pretty good age. Its possible she'd live longer, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.). Manuel is still going to have a chance to demonstrate why his father and grandfather were cautious.

Though, as the fourth son, the odds aren't good that he'll take over - he's born the same year as the point of departure (a few months after Alexius's death).
 

elder.wyrm

Banned
John concentrated on sieges, which was cautious. Perhaps wisely, but it didn't destroy Seljuk power and regain Anatolia, which someone like John Tzimeskes or another great general might have done. Or perhaps Anna's husband...

Maneuver from siege to siege pretty much WAS medieval grand strategy. It was the single most wise thing to avoid pitched battles in most cases because you risk your army in the battle and you are fucked if you lose it. John was an intelligent man, in terms of strategy: He didn't risk his army and he was focuses on the objective of re-taking Anatolia rather than the glory. Fighting pitched battles wins glory, fighting sieges wins wars. Just seasonally pushing back against the Turk and penny-pinching as you re-build the Roman military was pretty much the optimal Byzantine strategy in the 1100's.

John was probably the best of the Komnenids and replacing him is likely to only lead to a worse outcome.
 

elder.wyrm

Banned
John died at fifty-six from what I can tell, not forty-two.

Anna died at seventy in 1153 (and probably wouldn't live much longer as empress - seventy is a pretty good age. Its possible she'd live longer, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.). Manuel is still going to have a chance to demonstrate why his father and grandfather were cautious.

Though, as the fourth son, the odds aren't good that he'll take over - he's born the same year as the point of departure (a few months after Alexius's death).

Yeah, my mistake. He died in 1143, rather than at 42.

My bad, you still got the gist of my point.

But even just 10 more years of non-Manuelian rule (which is assuming Nikephorus and Anna actually are better than Manuel -- a broad assumption; Manual was an excellent general, but a horrid executive who blew all the savings his father had accumulated and wrecked Byzantine foreign policy for generations) would do something. Not much, but something.
 
Yeah, my mistake. He died in 1143, rather than at 42.

My bad, you still got the gist of my point.

Yeah, I'm just a natural nitpicker. No worries.

But even just 10 more years of non-Manuelian rule (which is assuming Nikephorus and Anna actually are better than Manuel -- a broad assumption; Manual was an excellent general, but a horrid executive who blew all the savings his father had accumulated and wrecked Byzantine foreign policy for generations) would do something. Not much, but something.
I'm not sure I'd quite go to the point of saying Manuel utterly blew it, but he put his successors in the position of recovering from his actions rather than building on them.

His policy in Italy was particularly pathetic. It didn't make friends, it didn't eliminate enemies, and it was expensive. At least in the Balkans/Hungary he made Byzantium look strong.

I think the problem is not how many years he's on the throne but the likelyhood that he'll do things like his Italian adventure...and his ridiculous sense of diplomacy in Anatolia (support the strong guy? Wait, what?)
 

elder.wyrm

Banned
I'm not sure I'd quite go to the point of saying Manuel utterly blew it, but he put his successors in the position of recovering from his actions rather than building on them.

His policy in Italy was particularly pathetic. It didn't make friends, it didn't eliminate enemies, and it was expensive. At least in the Balkans/Hungary he made Byzantium look strong.

I think the problem is not how many years he's on the throne but the likelyhood that he'll do things like his Italian adventure...and his ridiculous sense of diplomacy in Anatolia (support the strong guy? Wait, what?)

The thing with Manuel was that he become caught up in the glory rather than concentrating on the objective, like so many other born-to-the-purple princes before him.

He spent vast sums of money to impress Western European nobility and royalty, he went for prestige projects on the extreme periphery of his sphere of influence (Southern Italy, Antioch, the upper Balkans) rather than the necessity projects right in front of him (ANATOLIA).

It's kind of unfortunate how well glory hounding worked out for him. He's the most famous and best known (both in terms of popularity and in terms of quantity of source material) of the Komnenids, by far, and usually it's assumed that he was the best of them. More likely, if it hadn't been for the huge war chest built up by his father, he would have been remembered as one of the worst. An embarrassing footnote.
 
The thing with Manuel was that he become caught up in the glory rather than concentrating on the objective, like so many other born-to-the-purple princes before him.

I think this sums him up. A question, to go back to the main subject.

What are Anna's kids like?
 
This may be the wrong thread for it, but could you elaborate on this theory/understanding?
I can, but I'm afraid only briefly. Basically, as far as the Komnenoi were concerned, the Seljuks of Rum were nothing more than their rebellious vassals- an Islamic replacement of the old feudal aristocracy that had been going strong since the ninth century. There was no great effort invested in regaining the plateau because there wasn't really any extra influence to be gained there. The Emperor remained legally sovereign, and in any case, Constantinople had not exercised much control over the affairs of the Anatolian gentry for decades before Manzikert. In addition to all of this, the Romans saw it as rather convenient to have the outer defences of Anatolia to the East protected by their vassals, rather than directly by themselves.

Looking at it in this light, one can see why Manuel didn't really make war much in central Anatolia: for much of this period, the Sultan Kilij Arslan II was a rather loyal and quiet vassal for Manuel, who provided plenty of tribute and soldiers. Given what we know of the Emperor's character, we may be sure that he would have been horrified at the idea of attacking a peaceful and reliable subject. Hungary and Outremer, meanwhile, were rebellious subjects who needed to be destroyed for the good of the Empire (and by extension, the wider universe), and the Italian adventure was one of defending another loyal ally from attack by a hostile enemy.
 
I can, but I'm afraid only briefly. Basically, as far as the Komnenoi were concerned, the Seljuks of Rum were nothing more than their rebellious vassals- an Islamic replacement of the old feudal aristocracy that had been going strong since the ninth century. There was no great effort invested in regaining the plateau because there wasn't really any extra influence to be gained there. The Emperor remained legally sovereign, and in any case, Constantinople had not exercised much control over the affairs of the Anatolian gentry for decades before Manzikert. In addition to all of this, the Romans saw it as rather convenient to have the outer defences of Anatolia to the East protected by their vassals, rather than directly by themselves.

Looking at it in this light, one can see why Manuel didn't really make war much in central Anatolia: for much of this period, the Sultan Kilij Arslan II was a rather loyal and quiet vassal for Manuel, who provided plenty of tribute and soldiers. Given what we know of the Emperor's character, we may be sure that he would have been horrified at the idea of attacking a peaceful and reliable subject. Hungary and Outremer, meanwhile, were rebellious subjects who needed to be destroyed for the good of the Empire (and by extension, the wider universe), and the Italian adventure was one of defending another loyal ally from attack by a hostile enemy.
Don't think of things as a zero sum game between Islam and Christianity because the Crusaders and Byzantines didn't, at least not consistently.
 
So let's change this thread a bit, WI Anna does not assasinateJohn but instead becomes his close advisor. With her running the goverment and he running the campaigns and military the two together wouldmake a very formidable duo. what do people think??
 
So let's change this thread a bit, WI Anna does not assasinateJohn but instead becomes his close advisor. With her running the goverment and he running the campaigns and military the two together wouldmake a very formidable duo. what do people think??
I don't think it's plausible that he'd be at all willing to cede such control over civilian power in the Empire to his sister. The circumstances make co-operation between them unlikely.
 
Don't think of things as a zero sum game between Islam and Christianity because the Crusaders and Byzantines didn't, at least not consistently.

Not to continue derailing this more than necessary (and thanks to both you and BG for your answers):

The main thing to me, speaking as a relative amateur (which is why I'm asking), is the issue of whether or not the Seljuks are really vassals in the sense of being part of the area the Emperor can reasonably expect men and money from.

Its not so much Islam vs. Christianity as the Sultan as a subject of the Basileos vs. the Sultan controlling Anatolia meaning the Basileos doesn't.

After all, post-Manuel, it seems that the latter occurred, though this may be more a result of an increasingly weak basileos (and even a casual look at Byzantine history should show how the Anatolian aristocracy takes advantage of it) that, with the empire being kicked in the...teeth...in 1204 means that the overmighty subject became able to ignore the so-called master entirely.

Am I understanding things correctly in that? Or did it go beyond merely the usual case + unusual disaster?

Related to the thread's real subject: Why couldn't/didn't Anna and John get along? Siblings shared power before (though I can't think of any brother-sister co-emperors) in the empire.
 
Top