WI: Nicholas Kanabos accepts his election as Byzantine Emperor?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

Shortly before the Fourth Crusade, during Isaac II and Alexios IV's battle for the throne, the Byzantine Senate elected Nicholas Kanabos as their candidate for the imperial office. But alas, he refused, and Alexios V offered him clemency and a position in his government. But out of fear, he also refused that, and was then deemed a threat by Alexios V, leading to him being strangled on the steps of the Hagia Sophia.

So lets say he accepts the throne. What happens next? Can he take the throne, and if so, what can he do? Evidently even gloomy Alexios V liked him, which means he was reasonably popular.

I doubt it would be very plausible but given the rise of magnates and a wannabe commercial bourgeoisie at the time, could the Senate be turned into an important government organ again?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Kanabos
 
I don't know much about him, but this does sound like a way for the Senate to empower itself as much as appoint a new Emperor.

So at least in that respect, it could lead to the Senate being granted the role of "Appointing the Kaisar" on a more permanent basis - perhaps with the intention of limiting the risk of civil war (which would be good).

If the election of one of their own doesn't bring the Elite onside and help prevent the sacking by the 4th Crusade however, I'm doubtful of the impact this has on history.

What does leave me baffled is how the Venetians and Crusaders were able to take towers and the Blachernae, when the Ottomans took so much longer to do the same. Could Kanabos butterfly that?
 
This does bring back memories...

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/january-24-1204.190794/
(I planned on turning them into a sorta trading empire ala Italian city states, but then decided the whole thing was kinda pointless)


As for the question in the OP - there is no reason to dismiss the possibility of alternate leadership enabling a Byzantine victory against the Crusaders. Whether or not it can also prevent the fragmentation of the Empire is up in the air - probably not IMHO, but stranger things have happened.

Regarding the Senate - I think the only way to make it important in the long run is to turn it into an English Parliament analogue
 
This does bring back memories...

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/january-24-1204.190794/
(I planned on turning them into a sorta trading empire ala Italian city states, but then decided the whole thing was kinda pointless)

That does sound fun. Having towns and villages and fortresses ruled by the Emperor, but giving 'City' (or some sort of status) to certain cities to permit a trading republic to rule? Ballsy. Lord knows what circumstances Constantinople would see in that setup. I'd read that.

As for the question in the OP - there is no reason to dismiss the possibility of alternate leadership enabling a Byzantine victory against the Crusaders. Whether or not it can also prevent the fragmentation of the Empire is up in the air - probably not IMHO, but stranger things have happened.

Regarding the Senate - I think the only way to make it important in the long run is to turn it into an English Parliament analogue

As in a legislative body? I can't see that happening immediately. I can only really see it being a way to blunt noble ambitions or sort out the inheritance. But controlling the purse-strings? I can't see that happening without a civil war (which the Romans can ill afford).

However, a shortlisting body I think might work. Shortlisting potential successors, and governors, for the Emperor to choose would offload a lot of those responsibilities.

As an aside, a hybrid of both of these ideas could be interesting, with the Patricians of leading trading families occupying Senatorial seats could be interesting, especially as a counter to the landed dynatoi. Whether it is every family, or the leader of the Trading City is another story.
 

Deleted member 67076

Regarding the Senate - I think the only way to make it important in the long run is to turn it into an English Parliament analogue
Id have thought of the Senate once again being used to anchor landed magnates around Constantinople's sphere through forcing empowered landlords to be in Constantinople and not back home on their farms. In exchange, the advisory council becomes informally more important. Not necessarily the way the English did it, but its a start.
What does leave me baffled is how the Venetians and Crusaders were able to take towers and the Blachernae, when the Ottomans took so much longer to do the same. Could Kanabos butterfly that?
Its been a while since I read up on the Fourth Crusade, but from memory: The Crusaders attacked the city multiple times and were repulsed several times. It was only when a massive fire raged on in the city that left several thousand homeless and bad winds allowed one of the walls to crack open, which in turn gave the Crusaders their opening. At a few points the Byzantines had a larger army than the Crusaders parked outside the city, but systemic division in leadership prevented them from using this.

Unification under 1 major leader and using that manpower advantage would probably allow them to crush through the crusader forces and relieve the siege.
 
Top