WI: Manuel I Komnenos succeeds in all his conquests?

During his 37-year reign, Emperor Manuel I Komnenos gained Syrmia, Bosnia and Dalmatia from the Kingdom of Hungary, and attempted to conquer Apulia (and possibly all of Southern Italy when it rose up in support of his invasion), Egypt and Central Anatolia (at least as far as Iconium).

These conquests failed for various reasons, but what if Manuel's conquests of these areas had been successful?

If Southern Italy fell to the Byzantines, could they have taken Sicily as well?

Despite these setbacks, Manuel was called "the Great" IOTL. ITTL, would he be seen as a new Constantine/Justinian/Heraclius?

How would these conquests affect relations between Manuel/the Byzantines and Western Europe (the Papcy especially)?

Any thoughts?
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
It would lead to a great Byzantine resurgence. With half of Anatolia back under their control, southern Italy, some Balkan territories and Egypt.
 
It would lead to a great Byzantine resurgence. With half of Anatolia back under their control, southern Italy, some Balkan territories and Egypt.

Yeah, but I doubt the crusader states would be happy with such an encirclement. Manuel tried to be on good terms with the Latins, but his successors may see annexing or vassalizing Jerusalem as the last step in restoring the borders of the old Eastern Empire, minus Central and Northern Italy and Tunisia, which the Byzantines may not see as much value in as Justinian did.

I wonder what the proselytisation rate would be among Catholics and Muslims, if the Byzantines go that far and don't just try and get their taxes.

And if the Mongols still come knocking, it may make them a larger target, unless the Byzantines offer to pay tribute.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
If his dynasty holds them for even fifty to a hundred years that could prolong the empire's existence to at least say 1500.
 
If his dynasty holds them for even fifty to a hundred years that could prolong the empire's existence to at least say 1500.
That would be easy by just not having morons on the scale of the Angeloi on the throne.
I don't think they would be able to keep Sicily for long due to it's location but the rest? a good chance they could keep a good part of it depending on how history develops.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
I think the deal was the crusaders would get the interior while the Byzantines would get some coastal ports.

Which is a possible arrangement.

But yes a full scale reconquest of Egypt is impossible.
 
I think the deal was the crusaders would get the interior while the Byzantines would get some coastal ports.

Which is a possible arrangement.

But yes a full scale reconquest of Egypt is impossible.

It's more possible for the Crusader states, who were chronically short of manpower, to hold the interior of Egypt, but not the Byzantines?
 
Honestly - the big problem for the Romans would be long-term control. As a result I can Egyptian rule leaning heavily on Melkites/Copts/Crusaders. In fact, that reliance on the Crusaders is probably how the Romans would start to dismantle the Crusader States - their failure in Egypt leads to Romans stepping in to take control and keeping it.

It'd be a big boon to be frank for the Romans to control all that again, and a boon for the European world - as it throws open the doors to trade, and with Egypt, if not secure, at least under friendly control - the Crusader States mainly have to worry about invasions from the NE and SE - leaving most of it peaceful - and potentially free to make substantial efforts at converting the local population so they have a reliable pool of manpower.

As for relationships between the Empire and the Papacy? With the Romans just south of Rome (I assume we're talking about S.Italy up to that point) - we've got one nervous Pope.
 
Yeah, but I doubt the crusader states would be happy with such an encirclement. Manuel tried to be on good terms with the Latins, but his successors may see annexing or vassalizing Jerusalem as the last step in restoring the borders of the old Eastern Empire, minus Central and Northern Italy and Tunisia, which the Byzantines may not see as much value in as Justinian did.

I wonder what the proselytisation rate would be among Catholics and Muslims, if the Byzantines go that far and don't just try and get their taxes.

And if the Mongols still come knocking, it may make them a larger target, unless the Byzantines offer to pay tribute.
Honestly,the ERE need not heed the Crusader states' concern. They were actually a liability rather than a source of help. They were in no position to threaten the ERE whatsoever. I've read that the only reason why the ERE didn't conquer them one by one was due to fear of how the West would react.
 
Honestly,the ERE need not heed the Crusader states' concern. They were actually a liability rather than a source of help. They were in no position to threaten the ERE whatsoever. I've read that the only reason why the ERE didn't conquer them one by one was due to fear of how the West would react.

Exactly. Better to keep at least Jerusalem as an ally, like when Manuel married his niece, Theodora, to King Baldwin III.
 
Exactly. Better to keep at least Jerusalem as an ally, like when Manuel married his niece, Theodora, to King Baldwin III.
That’s the problem I’m trying to point out to be honest.There was actually no point in allying with the KoJ.The KoJ was a dubious ally whose worth was more of a liability than any benefit to the ERE.
 
Last edited:
Egypt would probably slip from the Empire's grasp after Manuel's death, as it was quite distant from the Imperial heartlands and would have fairly tenuous lines of communication with Constantinople. Possibly Southern Italy too, since historically the Empire had a fair bit of difficulty projecting power across the Straits of Otranto. The reconquest of Anatolia, on the other hand, would be extremely beneficial: most of the population would still have been culturally Greek, making it easier to hold the place, and the extra land would significantly boost the Empire's resources. In such a scenario I'd expect the Empire to survive significantly longer than IOTL, possibly even until the present day.
 
I think this is too late for the Empire to make much more expansive reconquests in Asia than it had at the death of Basil II, honestly. Egypt is out of the question IMO.
 
Top