WI: Longer Komnenian Restoration?

The Komnenian Restoration was, for those who don't know, was a period in the history of the ERE/Byzantine Empire where for 104ish years the Komnenoi Dynasty basically saved the Byzantines from total extinction. They pushed the borders forward and gave the Empire precious time to catch its breath after Manzikert some five decades prior. However after the death of the last Komnenian Emperor in 1185 the Empire quickly fell apart again. But how long could the Empire reasonably sustain such a golden age? The Imperial Army and Administration was straight up detrimental to the Empire's survival and the frequent civil wars kept kicking the Empire while it was down. Are these problems inevitable or could a longer string of strong Emperors (not just Komnenoi even) fix the Empire?
 
Even after 1204 Michael VIII managed to retake Constantinople and restore the empire although in a much more diminished fashion. I would argue that the empire had a chance of surviving up until the Civil war in the 1300's. His reign saw the reconstruction of the Roman navy and defensively oriented army. His main problem was Charles of Anjou who was very militarily competent and was hell bent on restoring Latin Rule in Constantinople. The pope saw the Romans as heretics and Michael tried to create a union between the Eastern and Orthodox Churches to avoid giving Charles Papal support to invade the Empire. Charles was an existential threat to the Romans. Perhaps if he drowned at sea or lost to Hohenstaufen and failed to sieze Sicily from them. This would have allowed Michael to focus on consolidating the empire's power and rebuilding it. By avoiding the "union" between the Churches that alienate the local populace the Romans were set to rebound after a devastating crisis like they always had. And maybe he could have time to focus on training a worthy successor.

To answer your question, up until 1204 Constantinople was at the peak of its power as a city. It was the largest and wealthiest city in Christendom and the empire despite the corruption and incompetence of the Angeloi dynasty had undergone a financial boom as it controlled the wealthy coasts of Anatolia and still dominated the Black Sea trade. Manuel in fact almost was able to retake all of Anatolia had he won the battle of Myrokephalon. If he manages to avoid the Turkish ambush then this would have left Ikonium open to the Romans. Once Ikonium fell to the Romans then the gateway to Central Anatolia would be open allowing Manuel to conquer the region and restore the Byzantine heartland. Manuel would most likely stop here as he was in his 60's, but without the battle of Myrokephalon his health would not have deteriorated rapidly. If Manuel lived long enough then his son Alexios II could most likely take throne without issue. Alexios II was 14 in otl and there was a power struggle over his regency which Andronikos Komnenos Manuel's cousin used to step into the void. He killed or removed Alexios's supporters and eventually had him strangled to death. If you can avoid the disastrous reign of Andronikos that brought about the Angeloi then its likely that the empire could easily have another Macedonian style renaissance. The Bulgarians in ttl would likely not revolt without the extortionate taxation that Isacc II implemented. A longer lived Alexios II would probably spend his reign consolidating his Anatolian holdings. Anatolia was mostly Christian with the Turks being a small minority in the region, and they would likely be assimilated and Hellenized by the Romans. Without Andronikos II there might not be the Latin Massacre and perhaps tensions between the Eastern and Western Churches might cool down. Alexios II could theoretically launch a war of re-conquest in Italy to crush the Normans who were at many times an existential threat to the Empire. With a stronger Eastern Roman Empire the Renaissance might not even happen as it was triggered by many Greek scholars fleeing West after 1204.

Though the main problem with the Roman system is that it relied on there being a capable emperor at the head, but perhaps with a more successful Manuel the empire might have time to develop stronger institutions that are able to function independently without the constant attention of the Basileus like during the 5th century (Reign of the Theodosians) or under the Macedonian dynasty.
 
With a stronger Eastern Roman Empire the Renaissance might not even happen as it was triggered by many Greek scholars fleeing West after 1204.

I disagree with this sentence -- the Renaissance started in the 14th century and the early humanists were almost all Latinists, so at least in its early stages it had little to do with Byzantium. Later on there would be differences, though if there grows up a demand for Greek texts in the West you could see Western humanists travelling to Constantinople to copy/buy manuscripts of Greek authors.
 
Manuel in fact almost was able to retake all of Anatolia had he won the battle of Myrokephalon. If he manages to avoid the Turkish ambush then this would have left Ikonium open to the Romans. Once Ikonium fell to the Romans then the gateway to Central Anatolia would be open allowing Manuel to conquer the region and restore the Byzantine heartland. Manuel would most likely stop here as he was in his 60's, but without the battle of Myrokephalon his health would not have deteriorated rapidly.

Myrokephalon is a very interesting POD. Winning that and subsequently taking Ikonium probably butterflies away the Angeloi ruler and the Fourth Crusade and then we're off to the races.
 
How long could a Byzie Empire that won Myrokephalon succeed? Its my understanding that the Empire was flawed almost to the very foundation and would take a long time to restore to a semblance of stability, but I will admit by knowledge of the Empire is rather surface level.
 
Alexios Branas could be a good emperor and a worthy successor of the Komnenoi. Have him rebel against Isaac II immediately after Andronikos' death, so you can butterfly the next 20 years under the Angeloi.
 
How long could a Byzie Empire that won Myrokephalon succeed? Its my understanding that the Empire was flawed almost to the very foundation and would take a long time to restore to a semblance of stability, but I will admit by knowledge of the Empire is rather surface level.

A victory there makes a full reconquest of Anatolia a real possibility. If that happens, the empire might never fall.
 

Deleted member 67076

This isn't a popular idea here, but you could just have Andronikos Komnenos last longer and continue his purges of corrupt aristocrats.

His popularity only really tanked when the Normans sacked Thessalonica, and so avoiding that is a game changer (doable by changing the relief armies and putting in a better governor/having governor David Komnenos actually have the city prepare for a siege enough to delay the Normans until the relief army arrives).

So Andronikos stabilizes the Norman advance, and continues his purges of the aristocracy bit by bit. His reforms curb corruption, improve the judiciary, redistribute land, and basically arrests the "Putinization" of the Empire in a complete reversal of the Angelois policies. In a few years the Empire is fiscally solvent again and leverages the advances of the Third Crusade to take Iconium and beyond.

The Turks are broken (for now), and the empire appears to be going a hegemonic resurgence with one frontier finally secure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This isn't a popular idea here, but you could just have Andronikos Komnenos last longer and continue his purges of corrupt aristocrats.

His population only really tanked when the Normans sacked Thessalonica, and so avoiding that (doable by changing the relief armies and putting in a better governor/having governor David Komnenos actually have the city prepare for a siege enough to delay the Normans until the relief army arrives).

So Andronikos stabilizes the Norman advance, and continues his purges of the aristocracy bit by bit. His reforms curb corruption, improve the judiciary, redistribute land, and basically arrests the "Putinization" of the Empire in a complete reversal of the Angelois policies. In a few years the Empire is fiscally solvent again and leverages the advances of the Third Crusade to take Iconium and beyond.

The Turks are broken (for now), and the empire appears to be going a hegemonic resurgence with one frontier finally secure.
I did some re-reading into Andronikos. His purge of the aristocracy is reminiscent of that of Aurelian and Diocletian. Justinian also adopted similar punitive measures against the old elite that resented his peasant background. And the Pronoia system did empower the aristocracy that Basil II tried to crush. So perhaps if he was successful then perhaps he could re-instate the control of the central government over the provinces. And when his successors take over they might recreate a variant of the theme system with an enlarged tagmata because of the empire’s wealth and resources. If Andronikos perhaps avoided the massacre of the Latins then perhaps he could use the Crusaders to his advantage.
 
A victory there makes a full reconquest of Anatolia a real possibility. If that happens, the empire might never fall.
They even briefly fought a war with the Hungarians and occupied Illyria. So perhaps they might even retake the Balkans, and without the Bulgarians breaking away in the next century they might be hellenized or integrated into Roman society like the Armenians were.
 

trajen777

Banned
Even after 1204 Michael VIII managed to retake Constantinople and restore the empire although in a much more diminished fashion. I would argue that the empire had a chance of surviving up until the Civil war in the 1300's. His reign saw the reconstruction of the Roman navy and defensively oriented army. His main problem was Charles of Anjou who was very militarily competent and was hell bent on restoring Latin Rule in Constantinople. The pope saw the Romans as heretics and Michael tried to create a union between the Eastern and Orthodox Churches to avoid giving Charles Papal support to invade the Empire. Charles was an existential threat to the Romans. Perhaps if he drowned at sea or lost to Hohenstaufen and failed to sieze Sicily from them. This would have allowed Michael to focus on consolidating the empire's power and rebuilding it. By avoiding the "union" between the Churches that alienate the local populace the Romans were set to rebound after a devastating crisis like they always had. And maybe he could have time to focus on training a worthy successor.

To answer your question, up until 1204 Constantinople was at the peak of its power as a city. It was the largest and wealthiest city in Christendom and the empire despite the corruption and incompetence of the Angeloi dynasty had undergone a financial boom as it controlled the wealthy coasts of Anatolia and still dominated the Black Sea trade. Manuel in fact almost was able to retake all of Anatolia had he won the battle of Myrokephalon. If he manages to avoid the Turkish ambush then this would have left Ikonium open to the Romans. Once Ikonium fell to the Romans then the gateway to Central Anatolia would be open allowing Manuel to conquer the region and restore the Byzantine heartland. Manuel would most likely stop here as he was in his 60's, but without the battle of Myrokephalon his health would not have deteriorated rapidly. If Manuel lived long enough then his son Alexios II could most likely take throne without issue. Alexios II was 14 in otl and there was a power struggle over his regency which Andronikos Komnenos Manuel's cousin used to step into the void. He killed or removed Alexios's supporters and eventually had him strangled to death. If you can avoid the disastrous reign of Andronikos that brought about the Angeloi then its likely that the empire could easily have another Macedonian style renaissance. The Bulgarians in ttl would likely not revolt without the extortionate taxation that Isacc II implemented. A longer lived Alexios II would probably spend his reign consolidating his Anatolian holdings. Anatolia was mostly Christian with the Turks being a small minority in the region, and they would likely be assimilated and Hellenized by the Romans. Without Andronikos II there might not be the Latin Massacre and perhaps tensions between the Eastern and Western Churches might cool down. Alexios II could theoretically launch a war of re-conquest in Italy to crush the Normans who were at many times an existential threat to the Empire. With a stronger Eastern Roman Empire the Renaissance might not even happen as it was triggered by many Greek scholars fleeing West after 1204.

Though the main problem with the Roman system is that it relied on there being a capable emperor at the head, but perhaps with a more successful Manuel the empire might have time to develop stronger institutions that are able to function independently without the constant attention of the Basileus like during the 5th century (Reign of the Theodosians) or under the Macedonian dynasty.


Excellent analysis
 
Top