WI: Which Byzantine-Georgian alliance scenario seems more plausible?

Which of these scenarios seems more plausible?

  • Byzantine-supported Demna uprising

    Votes: 3 17.6%
  • Marriage between Alexios and Tamar

    Votes: 14 82.4%

  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
In a scenario where, say, Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komenos wins the Battle of Myriokephalon, and he decides he needs the Kingdom of Georgia as an Eastern ally, as I see it, there are two ways it could go:

1. Manuel supports the uprising of Demetrius (Demna), son of David V, against King George III, by sending either money or troops, similar to what he had done with Hungary after Geza II's death.

OR

2. The revolt happens and fails as IOTL before Manuel can get involved, and Manuel offers to betroth his son and heir, Alexios, to George III's daughter and heir, Tamar. Would it be accepted by George and/or the Georgian nobles?

Which of these two possibilities would seem more plausible?
 
Presumably the second option is more likely as the Romans have only repulsed an ambush and still need to actually conquer the Rum Turks and a marriage alliance prevents vital troops from being diverted from dealing with them. Even then, as Manuel died in 1180 and his mother and uncle subsequently excluded him from power and had him killed respectively, plus the fact that Tamar is ten years older than him it is more than likely that any alliance would be short lived at best.
 
Presumably the second option is more likely as the Romans have only repulsed an ambush and still need to actually conquer the Rum Turks and a marriage alliance prevents vital troops from being diverted from dealing with them. Even then, as Manuel died in 1180 and his mother and uncle subsequently excluded him from power and had him killed respectively,

For the purposes of this AHC, I'm assuming that a victory at Myriokephalon doesn't break Manuel's spirit, as the defeat did IOTL, and causes him to live a few (say five) years more.

plus the fact that Tamar is ten years older than him it is more than likely that any alliance would be short lived at best.

Or three years older, depending on who you ask. There's still the historical precedent of Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine.
 
Or three years older, depending on who you ask. There's still the historical precedent of Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine.
What I meant by this Temar is reputed to be a shrewd and talented ruler and would surely come into conflict with his mother and uncle and judging by how her first marriage ended she would not be afraid to strike out on her own. This potentially meaning a break in the alliance or a civil war.
 
What I meant by this Temar is reputed to be a shrewd and talented ruler and would surely come into conflict with his mother and uncle and judging by how her first marriage ended she would not be afraid to strike out on her own. This potentially meaning a break in the alliance or a civil war.

True, but, again, that may also depend on how long Manuel lives into the 1180s. Still, apart from the main Angeloi, I'm not sure one could do worse for a husband than Yury Bogolyubsky.

By the way, Andronikos Komnenos was Alexios II's cousin, not his uncle.
 
Okay, so far the overwhelming majority is for a marriage between Tamar and Alexios II. Any particular reasons why? And any thoughts of how/if it could lead to a reconquest of Central & Eastern Anatolia and/or Armenia? Besides which, I'm not too sure about the Kingdom of Georgia's historical amount of contact with Catholic Europe. Would their relationship have been better than, worse than, or similar to Western relations with the Byzantines and the Rus' principalities?
 
Bumping for interest. What could a Byzantine-Georgian personal union have accomplished in Anatolia and/or Armenia? How long would it last, especially if the Mongol invasions still occur? IOTL, the Byzantine remnants - Nicaea and Trebizond mainly - managed to escape the fate of, say, the Abbasids and the Kievan Rus, while the Kingdom of Georgia was hit pretty badly, leading to a centuries-long succession crisis.
 
Hello? Okay. If people feel there isn't anything more to discuss about this scenario, I understand. I don't agree, but I understand.
 
Bumping for interest.

If the Byzantines and Kingdom of Georgia did unite under Alexios II and Tamar, what would generally be the reaction of other nearby powers (specifically, the Crusader states, the Cumans, the Ayyubids, the Abbasids and the Khwarezmians)? I'm guessing fear for the most part, and that the Western European powers (including the Sicilians and maybe the Venetians and Genoese) may not know or understand enough to know exactly what it means, except possibly a more powerful schismatic Christian power in Europe.
 
We have no idea the quality of Alexios II leadership but we do know Tamar's quality.

The Strength of those combined armies, leadership in 1180 will surely change Rome's fate in the short term until Tamar's death or Alexios II death, assuming Alexios II is competent, and affect the balance of power in the region.

I believe the immediate reaction will be not much. But will probably change once Rome under Tamar's leadership or guiding Alexious II smashing over everyone's borders and the Restoration of Roman borders beyond Basil 2's.
 
I doubt "Fear" is the exact words. But it would likely be a powerful union. The issues may well be how the two realms interact - it isn't a given that Georgia becomes part of the Empire, its own nobility may take issue with that. Tamar might be forced to either abdicate, or make a noble 'Despot' under her Imperialnessness (which might work for unification.).

The big thing IMO would be how the realm is ruled. If we have Tamar being Empress and Queen - her distant rule (of Georgia) in Constantinople is likely to be effective, but unappealing for her subjects unless there is some lavish spending (good for the economy though).

I can see a reclaimation, and rebuilding of Anatolia, specifically in a way that also boosts Georgian fortunes as a partner of the Empire.
 
Top