WI George Maniaces doesnt die and succesfully usurps Byzantine Crown?

A lot would depend on if he were truly nuts (i.e. Phokas), or just an army strongman with enough sense to know how much he needs to keep the capital and civil service sweet. If the latter... he could not be worse than what they had (definite agreement on the whole reestablishment of the Themes thing).

HTG
 
George Maniaces could perhaps be a similar Emperor to Nicephorus Phocas, (963-969) a millitary genius but a poor diplomat and ultimately unsuited to governing an Empire. That said it is hard to imagine him being any worse for the Empire than the pathetic Constantine IX. With a little luck, Maniaces might have been able to hold on to power for long enough to establish a strong power base in Constantinople, and appoint as his heir a more moderate, but still competent millitary leader, thus giving Byzantium a far better chance of weathering the Turkish storm which it would collapse before in the 1070s.
 
George Maniaces could perhaps be a similar Emperor to Nicephorus Phocas, (963-969) a millitary genius but a poor diplomat and ultimately unsuited to governing an Empire. That said it is hard to imagine him being any worse for the Empire than the pathetic Constantine IX. With a little luck, Maniaces might have been able to hold on to power for long enough to establish a strong power base in Constantinople, and appoint as his heir a more moderate, but still competent millitary leader, thus giving Byzantium a far better chance of weathering the Turkish storm which it would collapse before in the 1070s.

I agree... this scenario butterflies away Manzikert and allows the empire to be in a stronger position... Maybe Maniaces successor doesnot petitions the Pope to call for a Crusade...
 
Maybe Maniaces successor doesnot petitions the Pope to call for a Crusade...May 11th, 2008 02:54 PM
i don't see why he would. my best guess is after a regime change in the 1040's, Asia Minor would be consolidated by Maniakes, which would mean there would be no point in calling for a crusade. Maniakes would leave his successor (perhaps Isaac Komnenos, the uncle of Alexius?) to expel the Normans from South Italy and Sicily in the 1060's. The closest you would get to a crusade would probably be a Byzantine-Papal alliance against the Normans... that is assuming there has not been a Great Schism, which, if Maniakes is a poor diplomat as i guessed is not unlikely.
Anyway as a best case scenario I would have Maniakes appoint Isaac Komnenos as his successor as Emperor, who is followed by his nephew Alexios. The Komnenoi then rule, as in OTL, until 1180, over an intact empire that has expanded to take Sicily. Perhaps with Asia Minor consolidated, Emperors John or Manuel may feel they can expand southwards after the Seljuk collapse into Palestine? Any thoughts?
 
I couldnt agree more... Apointing one of the Komnenoi as Emperor would be a great move by Maniaces... A strong General and good diplomat as Emperor in mid 12th century could have given the Empire many of the lost territories back...

P.S. Where are u from Basileus?
 
In Rome/Byzantium birth dosnt mean much any man with the support of an army and good generalship skills can take the throne.

I don't agree with this. Legitimacy was very important to the Byzantines. Maniakes didn't have it, and maintaining himself on the throne would have been a constant struggle and he would have likely failed - it's too easy to poison or otherwise assassinate someone.
 
I couldnt agree more... Apointing one of the Komnenoi as Emperor would be a great move by Maniaces... A strong General and good diplomat as Emperor in mid 12th century could have given the Empire many of the lost territories back...

P.S. Where are u from Basileus?

You're straying into fantasyland a little bit here. Nobody on the throne ever thinks, "hmm, maybe I'll give the throne to a rival dynasty!". He would want the throne to pass to his own offspring.
 
Northern England
But I find Greek history much more interesting that British

This is how I would imagine the Roman Empire to look after say 50 years of rule by George Maniakes and his descendants.
And the Imperial throne was not always limited to the aristocracy. Look at Basil I or Leo III, both sons of peasants, who rose to the throne purely through their own abilities. And Maniakes was the empire's foremost general at the time, so I don't think him being accepted as Basileus is too difficult to accept. Even appointing a Komnenid as his succesor is not out of the question, plenty of other Emperors appointed generals as their successors, this is how Maurice became Emperor. In any case, Maniakes could always have had himself adopted by one of the elderly sister Empresses Zoe or Theodora to cloak himself in legitimacy. Theodora particuarly detested being an empress, and would have been only too pleased to grant Maniakes her powers. As for Zoe, she'd have probably wanted to marry him. How would Maniakes have reacted to this?

Byzantium.png
 
Zoe was an old woman... Maybe Maniaces would marry her (he wouldnt expect her to live long enough anyway... besides "accidents" happened frequently that era...) just secure the throne...
 
That's a surprisingly realistic map (we're all Byzantowankers around here) - except I don't think anyone would bother with Sardinia and Corsica which really don't add anything to the empire and are serious strategic liabilities.

What is the grey state in Palestine?

Northern England
But I find Greek history much more interesting that British

This is how I would imagine the Roman Empire to look after say 50 years of rule by George Maniakes and his descendants.
And the Imperial throne was not always limited to the aristocracy. Look at Basil I or Leo III, both sons of peasants, who rose to the throne purely through their own abilities. And Maniakes was the empire's foremost general at the time, so I don't think him being accepted as Basileus is too difficult to accept. Even appointing a Komnenid as his succesor is not out of the question, plenty of other Emperors appointed generals as their successors, this is how Maurice became Emperor. In any case, Maniakes could always have had himself adopted by one of the elderly sister Empresses Zoe or Theodora to cloak himself in legitimacy. Theodora particuarly detested being an empress, and would have been only too pleased to grant Maniakes her powers. As for Zoe, she'd have probably wanted to marry him. How would Maniakes have reacted to this?
 
Zoe was an old woman... Maybe Maniaces would marry her (he wouldnt expect her to live long enough anyway... besides "accidents" happened frequently that era...) just secure the throne...

Also I'm pretty certain he was married. Remember reading that one of the reasons for his rebellion was that a rival allied to the emperor was ravaging his estates in Anatolia and seducing his [Maniaces's] wife. Wouldn't necessarily prevent a political divorce and new marriage but given Zoe's age and character I agree probably not the best idea.

The problem I see with adopting an heir is that I think he was fairly young and would probably plan on creating his own dynasty.

I agree with the Pasha about Sardinia and Corsica being unlikely, along with I think you have them with Genoa? Possibly a little more in the east depending on the circumstances but think things are a little generous in Italy given how long the empire and others have been fighting over S Italy and that the Normans are arriving. [Whatever I think about them as people they were pretty good warriors].

Steve
 
That's a surprisingly realistic map (we're all Byzantowankers around here) - except I don't think anyone would bother with Sardinia and Corsica which really don't add anything to the empire and are serious strategic liabilities.

What is the grey state in Palestine?

The map is supposed to be circa 1100 AD in a timeline I am working on where the Komnenid Dynasty comes to power in 1057 after Emperor George I Maniakes dies and Isaac Komnenos siezes the throne. Manzikert ends in a stalemate and the Turks turn south to attack the Fatimids, as their original plan was. Meanwhile the Romans defeat the Normans in a ten year war allied with Genoa and the Papacy before a much more serious war begins with the Holy Roman Empire. Genoa, Corsica and Sardinia are given the status of Byzantine themata for their own protection. Meanwhile to the east the Seljuk empire collapses as in OTL and several successor states emerge supported by Byzantium against the Fatimids and Seljuks, one of which is the "grey state in Palestine".
How plausible is this? In a war between the two Roman Empires, which is more likely to emerge victorious, German or Greek? Is it likely Byzantium will even become this involved in western affairs? I'm sure you lot all have a lot of expertise on this subject (more than a 16 year old Briton anyway!) and I would appreciate some help...
 
If we are talking about 1100s the alliance with the Pope might start wearing off... We delayed the Schism but by that point is inevitable... Maybe if the Emperor has secured his Eastern borders considers attacking the Papal States?
 
If we are talking about 1100s the alliance with the Pope might start wearing off... We delayed the Schism but by that point is inevitable... Maybe if the Emperor has secured his Eastern borders considers attacking the Papal States?

Hmm possible but at the moment (1111AD) in my timeline Byzantium is the Pope's number 1 ally against the Holy Roman Empire... the invasion of Italy in 1110 by Henry V has already been butterflied away because of fear of a Byzantine counterrattack...
Btw is anyone interesting in seeing/helping with this timeline? Essentially its components are these...
George Maniakes siezes the throne in 1047 and reigns for ten years before being poisoned by a former bureaucrat.
The Empire is plunged into temporary chaos before Isaac Komnenos siezes control and stabilises things.
Thanks to Isaac, who passes the throne to his nephew Alexius in 1075, the empire remains strong in the east, and becomes more and more involved in the politics of Italy, setting up an alliance with Genoa and the Papacy, initially against the Normans, but then against the Holy Roman Empire. Currently (in 1111AD) an uneasy peace prevails on all fronts, but how long can this last?
 
Hmm possible but at the moment (1111AD) in my timeline Byzantium is the Pope's number 1 ally against the Holy Roman Empire... the invasion of Italy in 1110 by Henry V has already been butterflied away because of fear of a Byzantine counterrattack...
Btw is anyone interesting in seeing/helping with this timeline? Essentially its components are these...
George Maniakes siezes the throne in 1047 and reigns for ten years before being poisoned by a former bureaucrat.
The Empire is plunged into temporary chaos before Isaac Komnenos siezes control and stabilises things.
Thanks to Isaac, who passes the throne to his nephew Alexius in 1075, the empire remains strong in the east, and becomes more and more involved in the politics of Italy, setting up an alliance with Genoa and the Papacy, initially against the Normans, but then against the Holy Roman Empire. Currently (in 1111AD) an uneasy peace prevails on all fronts, but how long can this last?

Nice TL but wouldnt the ensuing chaos after Maniaces death caused Turkish raids to the eastern borders of the Empire?
 
Hmmm perhaps but I would guess Isaac siezes the throne quickly and easily, and that most of his potential rivals in the bureaucratic faction have been eliminated by Emperor George. In addition to this the armed forces have seen the benefits of a decade of attention and growth under Maniakes and those Isaac leaves in the east after marching on Constantinople are better able to repel the Turkish raiders.
Anyway what's the most likely scenario to happen next in the Italian war? I'm assuming the peace continues to Alexius' death in 1118... but any ideas how the situation would develop after this?
 
Well... one thing is for sure... we might have delayed the Schism with Maniaces as Emperor and by eliminating Patriarch Michael Keroularios but we wont avoid it in 1118 and later... So Comneni Emperors must act fast to repel Turks so they can focus to Italy later...
 
Top