WI: George Maniakes takes the throne

Ovenchips95

Banned
In 1042 the Byzantine general George Maniakes rebelled against Constantine IX. He seemed to be a very popular and capable leader. Assuming he doesn't die a year later of a fatal wound, deposes Constantine and takes the throne, what would be the short-term consequences for the ERE?

Would he be able to at least temporarily halt the decline that had been taking place since Basil II died?
 
This happens in my short TL about Harald Hardrada (soon to be updated).

I would expect Maniakes to make a big determined push in Italy against the Normans
 
Temporarily haltng the decline he will, and probably get back control of Southern Italy too as a whole - he was warlike just like that.

However, since he too was from the landed military aristocracy of Anatolia, I don't see him really being able to curb the growing trend towards 'feudalization', so to speak.
 
I don't know enough about him to determine his position on "feudalisation" - but I don't discount the possibility that he'd feel restricted by the system that he used the benefit from. Knowing more about his tenure as Catepan of Italy might shed some light there. But his popularity with the army might lead him to want to centralise power around himself, backed by the army.

But a victory in the civil war than an invasion/conquest of Sicily would the Empire in an interesting position again - being one of two Emperors able to threaten the Pope. Being able to persuade the Pope to that, combined with the opening to take Normans into the Empire could be of benefit. Instead of Normans settling in Sicily, he might invite them to fight, and settle frontiers in Syria. Having a Norman Catholic/Orthodox population there could certainly be useful. (Plus, the idea of an alt-Bohemond being born in Antioch tickles me).
 
Top