Isaac Komnenos lived longer, long enough for the Komnenoi Dynasty to directly succeeded the Macedonian Dynasty

[PecuTheGreat]

So, this kind of happened with the last Macedonian, Theodora giving the throne to Michael Bringnas who barely ruled a year before Isaac successfully toppled him. Isaac himself was trained by Basil II. Well, first by Monks under Basil's employ then by the Emperor himself. He was a pretty good general and seemed like he was about to bring back the sort of administation Basil successfully ran the Empire under, until he died and gave the Empire over to another General that just squandered things until Romanos came to power and we all know how that went.

What if instead, Isaac lives long enough to pass the Empire over to Alexios?, who I assume he would have trained to some extent like Basil II trained him,

 

[Beaufortq]

Assuming the Seljuks still invade the Empire I guess a much different Manzikert, probably in a different location aswell. The disaster that OTL Manzikert was is likely avoided trough more competent leadership and either the Seljuk invasion is repelled or fizzles out after Armenia. So no Anatolia lost and the Empire remains a strong power.

That butterflies away OTL crusades. Maybe they still come into being but if they do, they are probably more focussed on the Iberian Peninsula and the Baltic Region and less on the middle east.

If the Komnenids establish themselves like the Macedonians we might even see a larger Empire for a time until the unavoidable civil war / succession struggle happens.

I think a different Manzikert changes so much that it's nearly impossible to predict how the world would've even looked a hundred years later.

 

[Evil Crusader]

Isaac's firstborn was one Manuel, Emperor Alexios actually was his nephew so the most likely way he can come to power, by far, is through intrigue - not the best for the Empire. (EDIT: he was dead by 1057, but still, Alexios isn't the first choice by any means.)
Still, an Empire that is ruled by a competent Isaac probably endures well and is far ahead of schedule by 1081 - quite possibly poised to retake Syria proper and not just the northern slice. Without the Crusades, the Pope has less prestige and so the Great Schism simmers for a bit longer.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

Isaac's firstborn was one Manuel, Emperor Alexios actually was his nephew so the most likely way he can come to power, by far, is through intrigue - not the best for the Empire.
Still, an Empire that is ruled by a competent Isaac probably endures well and is far ahead of schedule by 1081 - quite possibly poised to retake Syria proper and not just the northern slice. Without the Crusades, the Pope has less prestige and so the Great Schism simmers for a bit longer.

I thought Manuel was dead since he essentially gets no extra mention anywhere. Wait, let me check.

some from wikipedia

Manuel Komnenos (c. 1030 – c. 1042/57), probably the "son of Komnenos" recorded as having been engaged to the daughter of the protospatharios Helios. He died sometime between 1042 and 1057.

So he died OTL btw 12 and 25 +/- 5 yrs. Anyways, he died before his Dad OTL, and certainly would remain the same TTL.

 

[Silver01]

I thought Manuel was dead since he essentially gets no extra mention anywhere. Wait, let me check.

some from wikipedia


So he died OTL btw 12 and 25 +/- 5 yrs. Anyways, he died before his Dad OTL, and certainly would remain the same TTL.

Unless he got confused with the other Manuel komnenos Manuel the kuroplates Alexios older brother, Isaac died when he was 15 so if Manuel lives a little longer and wants to chose a family member he could choose him

 

[Tanaka did nothing wrong]

Well, to be precise, it seems that Isaakios I didn't nominate Constantine Doukas as his successor from the first moment. Psellos convinced Isaakios to abdicate and become a monk in order to live what was probably considered to be his final days, in relative peace, but the succession wasn't ironed out. Psellos most likely suggested Constantine Doukas, with whose family he maintained relatively close ties thanks to their positions at the top of the Constantinopolitan elite and his position as tutor of his son, Michael; but Isaakios' wife, Ekaterine of Bulgaria, tried hard to dissuade the emperor from abdicating. It was only when it became clear the emperor was determined to let go of the title of emperor, and Isaakios' brother Ioannes, refused to take the throne, that she changed strategy and tried instead to influence the selection of the succession, most likely with the goal of ensuring that the next emperor would be someone she could work with and help protect the influence of the family. In this context, the choice of Constantine Doukas made sense - he was seen as relatively inoffensive and it would allow her to co-opt Psellos for the time being; in fact, it seems that in the early months of Constantine X's reign, Ekaterine did play an important role in government, perhaps as part of an agreement with Isaakios in exchange for his agreement to become a monk.

Therefore, we could say there's a lot to play with: Isaakios snapping at Psellos, Isaakios deciding that his duty to the empire was above personal doubts etc. I think that under these circumstances, since Manuel wouldn't be around, the best option would be Ioannes Komnenos: Domestic of the Schools at the time, and with at least two living sons, he offered the best chances for the continuation of the Komnenoi hold on the throne. It wouldn't be difficult for him to consolidate his position; the support of the Doukai could be secured with a matrimonial link like the Alexius - Eirene match of OTL (perhaps a match between Manuel, Ioannes' eldest son, and Anna Doukaina), and opposition from the Church epitomised in the ambitions of Keroularios would most likely be less severe, which could make reform plans easier to implement.

As for the kind of policies that would be implemented, these would most likely be a continuation and expansion of the mesures Isaakios took. Therefore, revocation of proniae and grants, restoring the effectiveness of the taxation system, perhaps efforts to contain the debasement of the currency, and continuation of the reorganisation of the army. Another good thing is that if Ioannes dies at roughly the same time as IOTL (ie 1066 - 1067), he's going to have a smoother succession, with Manuel being 20 years old, perhaps already acquainted with the army, and with links to at least another major aristocratic family with a strong presence in the capital; therefore, unlike the OTL's vicissitudes that characterised the reign of Romanos IV, there could be a stabler political environment, allowing the empire to prosecute the war against the Seljuks more effectively.

 

[Avrorrange]

So, this kind of happened with the last Macedonian, Theodora giving the throne to Michael Bringnas who barely ruled a year before Isaac successfully toppled him. Isaac himself was trained by Basil II. Well, first by Monks under Basil's employ then by the Emperor himself. He was a pretty good general and seemed like he was about to bring back the sort of administation Basil successfully ran the Empire under, until he died and gave the Empire over to another General that just squandered things until Romanos came to power and we all know how that went.

What if instead, Isaac lives long enough to pass the Empire over to Alexios?, who I assume he would have trained to some extent like Basil II trained him,

Might not actually be Alexios who becomes emperor, but his older brothers.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

Might not actually be Alexios who becomes emperor, but his older brothers.

I didn't know he had several elder brothers. I just assumed the one that died before he got the throne. Thanks for the correction. I guess the throne goes to Manuel and from Manuel to Isaac II or Isaac II's children. Well, that's assuming Manuel still dies when he does.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

Well, to be precise, it seems that Isaakios I didn't nominate Constantine Doukas as his successor from the first moment. Psellos convinced Isaakios to abdicate and become a monk in order to live what was probably considered to be his final days, in relative peace, but the succession wasn't ironed out. Psellos most likely suggested Constantine Doukas, with whose family he maintained relatively close ties thanks to their positions at the top of the Constantinopolitan elite and his position as tutor of his son, Michael; but Isaakios' wife, Ekaterine of Bulgaria, tried hard to dissuade the emperor from abdicating. It was only when it became clear the emperor was determined to let go of the title of emperor, and Isaakios' brother Ioannes, refused to take the throne, that she changed strategy and tried instead to influence the selection of the succession, most likely with the goal of ensuring that the next emperor would be someone she could work with and help protect the influence of the family. In this context, the choice of Constantine Doukas made sense - he was seen as relatively inoffensive and it would allow her to co-opt Psellos for the time being; in fact, it seems that in the early months of Constantine X's reign, Ekaterine did play an important role in government, perhaps as part of an agreement with Isaakios in exchange for his agreement to become a monk.

Therefore, we could say there's a lot to play with: Isaakios snapping at Psellos, Isaakios deciding that his duty to the empire was above personal doubts etc. I think that under these circumstances, since Manuel wouldn't be around, the best option would be Ioannes Komnenos: Domestic of the Schools at the time, and with at least two living sons, he offered the best chances for the continuation of the Komnenoi hold on the throne. It wouldn't be difficult for him to consolidate his position; the support of the Doukai could be secured with a matrimonial link like the Alexius - Eirene match of OTL (perhaps a match between Manuel, Ioannes' eldest son, and Anna Doukaina), and opposition from the Church epitomised in the ambitions of Keroularios would most likely be less severe, which could make reform plans easier to implement.

As for the kind of policies that would be implemented, these would most likely be a continuation and expansion of the mesures Isaakios took. Therefore, revocation of proniae and grants, restoring the effectiveness of the taxation system, perhaps efforts to contain the debasement of the currency, and continuation of the reorganisation of the army. Another good thing is that if Ioannes dies at roughly the same time as IOTL (ie 1066 - 1067), he's going to have a smoother succession, with Manuel being 20 years old, perhaps already acquainted with the army, and with links to at least another major aristocratic family with a strong presence in the capital; therefore, unlike the OTL's vicissitudes that characterised the reign of Romanos IV, there could be a stabler political environment, allowing the empire to prosecute the war against the Seljuks more effectively.

How do you think a war between the Turks and these Romans would go?.

Also, apparently several Popes have been trying to gather an army before hand. If Rome doesn't need one and as such they can't intice people with Jerusalem, how do you think they'll go about doing that?.

 

[Avrorrange]

How do you think a war between the Turks and these Romans would go?.

Also, apparently several Popes have been trying to gather an army before hand. If Rome doesn't need one and as such they can't intice people with Jerusalem, how do you think they'll go about doing that?.

Probably limited to the borders with Armenia being a major site of battles.

 

[Tanaka did nothing wrong]

How do you think a war between the Turks and these Romans would go?.

Also, apparently several Popes have been trying to gather an army before hand. If Rome doesn't need one and as such they can't intice people with Jerusalem, how do you think they'll go about doing that?.

A possibility is that Ioannes manages to organise the army and border defences better, opting for a more robust approach to foreign policy than that of Constantine X. With some luck this could result to a scenario like the one Avrorrange described, with fighting being limited to the areas east of the Euphrates, and perhaps the Byzantines managing to hold on their holdings there for the most part - so Ani probably stays under Byzantine control for some time. Perhaps ittl, the Byzantines could manage to coordinate somewhat better with the Fatimids against the Seljuks. Best case scenario I guess would be that the empire manages to contain the Seljuks east of the Euphrates and Armenia, and the latter then beginning to fracture.

As for the second question, one change ittl may be that the Byzantines may be able to maintain a presence in southern Italy - at least Bari. Although the conquest of Sicily could still proceed, Robert Guiscard would probably face a lot more difficulty and resistance; this could in turn mean the more Normans would look towards the direction of Sicily, and beyond that Africa, which could in turn catch the attention of the Pope. (not sure though).

 

[Evil Crusader]

I thought Manuel was dead since he essentially gets no extra mention anywhere. Wait, let me check.

some from wikipedia


So he died OTL btw 12 and 25 +/- 5 yrs. Anyways, he died before his Dad OTL, and certainly would remain the same TTL.

True that, also my bad (I genuinely thought he'd at least outlived his father). Still, Alexios probably isn't the first or second choice here.

For the rest of the discussion, I'd say a stronger Byzantium can probably fight well the Normans, though unless exceptional circumstances Italy will always be the lesser priority for the Empire. When Alp Arslan comes, he's either going to invade straight or avoid Byzantine lands at all, rather than both parties just fumble into having to engage at Manzikert like it went OTL.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

True that, also my bad (I genuinely thought he'd at least outlived his father). Still, Alexios probably isn't the first or second choice here.

Yeah, I think u might hv confused Manuel, Alexios' and Isaac's senior brother for Manuel, Isaac's son. Manuel(Alexios brother) also didn't have a son when he died OTL, but even then the throne probably goes to Isaac who had kids of his own. So yeah, ur correction was still fundamentally right.

For the rest of the discussion, I'd say a stronger Byzantium can probably fight well the Normans, though unless exceptional circumstances Italy will always be the lesser priority for the Empire. When Alp Arslan comes, he's either going to invade straight or avoid Byzantine lands at all, rather than both parties just fumble into having to engage at Manzikert like it went OTL.

As for the second question, one change ittl may be that the Byzantines may be able to maintain a presence in southern Italy - at least Bari. Although the conquest of Sicily could still proceed, Robert Guiscard would probably face a lot more difficulty and resistance; this could in turn mean the more Normans would look towards the direction of Sicily, and beyond that Africa, which could in turn catch the attention of the Pope. (not sure though).

I wonder if the Seljuks would be enough of an issue to distract the Byzantines enough for the Normans to conquer Italy in this timeline or if the Byzantines would use alot of Norman mercenary soldiers in this timeline. I doubt but what was Basil's and Isaac's policy on soldiers, did they still let areas pay the empire rather than send a recruit?.

 

[Tanaka did nothing wrong]

Yeah, I think u might hv confused Manuel, Alexios' and Isaac's senior brother for Manuel, Isaac's son. Manuel(Alexios brother) also didn't have a son when he died OTL, but even then the throne probably goes to Isaac who had kids of his own. So yeah, ur correction was still fundamentally right.



I wonder if the Seljuks would be enough of an issue to distract the Byzantines enough for the Normans to conquer Italy in this timeline or if the Byzantines would use alot of Norman mercenary soldiers in this timeline. I doubt but what was Basil's and Isaac's policy on soldiers, did they still let areas pay the empire rather than send a recruit?.

Well, for one, Ioannes Komnenos as emperor could mean perhaps that the military obligations of the thema of Iberon aren't monetised (since this happened in 1064 iotl).

Mercenaries would most likely continue to occupy a central role in the army for some time at least, since any restructuring of the military would take time, and certain political considerations, such as the desire for a -theoretically - more independent power base, and the needs to maintain a standing army that would be able to deal with Seljuk raids if they got past the first line of border defences means that their presence would be there. Another thing to consider is that ITTL, the problems caused by the mercenaries - their political unreliability, their constant shifts in allegiance, their occasional collaboration with imperial enemies etc haven't really been experienced - yet. In the rebellions of Leo Tornikios and George Maniakes, the army of the government stayed loyal and proved effective in dealing with foreign threats; in the civil war that brought Isaakios I on the throne, the mercenary troops raised by the government at Constantinople didn't desert their employer - although that probably had to do with potential anxieties about their professional future, among other things; Mantzikert - where the defection of the Cuman mercenaries to the Seljuks and the subsequent retreat of Roussel de Bailleul and his host played an important role in the imperial defeat, hasn't taken place yet.

So I think that that he would still continue to employ relatively large numbers of mercenaries, although he would most likely pay special attention to the restitution and reinforcement of border units and local defence forces. I don't see why he wouldn't use Norman mercenaries - they would still be in southern Italy, and looking for employment.

 

[Silver01]

How do you think a war between the Turks and these Romans would go?.

like the first clashes of the otl before the coin debased the turks showed up in 1040s the seljuks defeated the romans at Ganja Vaspurakan, a stalemate at Kapetron, if the kommnenosc can deal with the issue of inflation which was caused by Constantine IX needing to figth a three front war between the pechenengs, normans and seljuks i think Isaac leaves italy to its fate like Romanos IV did, the seljuks would likely give the byzantines bloody noses and even take armenia if things go badly which would mean raids deeper into anatolia but it would be like the early arab raids bad but not conquering the place.

 

[Silver01]

Mercenaries would most likely continue to occupy a central role in the army for some time at least, since any restructuring of the military would take time, and certain political considerations, such as the desire for a -theoretically - more independent power base, and the needs to maintain a standing army that would be able to deal with Seljuk raids if they got past the first line of border defences means that their presence would be there. Another thing to consider is that ITTL, the problems caused by the mercenaries - their political unreliability, their constant shifts in allegiance, their occasional collaboration with imperial enemies etc haven't really been experienced - yet. In the rebellions of Leo Tornikios and George Maniakes, the army of the government stayed loyal and proved effective in dealing with foreign threats; in the civil war that brought Isaakios I on the throne, the mercenary troops raised by the government at Constantinople didn't desert their employer - although that probably had to do with potential anxieties about their professional future, among other things; Mantzikert - where the defection of the Cuman mercenaries to the Seljuks and the subsequent retreat of Roussel de Bailleul and his host played an important role in the imperial defeat, hasn't taken place yet.

War in Eleventh-Century Byzantium despite it problems say the issue of mercenaries has been very exaggerated and they did not become a problem until the debasment of the currency caused the collapse of the themata

 

[Tanaka did nothing wrong]

War in Eleventh-Century Byzantium despite it problems say the issue of mercenaries has been very exaggerated and they did not become a problem until the debasment of the currency caused the collapse of the themata

I would say it's correct. The issues with the defections etc could be said to begin in the late 1060s, when we saw the first frequent devaluations. Although I think that the unstable political environment also played an important role, since the opportunities for mercenaries to gain increased in number, if not in scale.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

and even take armenia if things go badly which would mean raids deeper into anatolia but it would be like the early arab raids bad but not conquering the place.

I am getting this from the Byzantium Podcast but it claims that the Empire's was no longer organized in the East to deal with raids defense in depth style and didn't rapidly enough change back to this defense in depth strategy, that they used against the Arabs in part due to "pride". I doubt Isaac would be willing to and maybe not immediately know how to switch back to this defense in depth strategy but if anyone is able to force such a switch back it should be him or similarly Prestigeous relatives but would the rank and file take the hint?. I assume if the Turks gain the Armenian highlands and start raiding, a few Roman generals would be killed in battle, dying to their tactics.

 

[Avrorrange]

I am getting this from the Byzantium Podcast but it claims that the Empire's was no longer organized in the East to deal with raids defense in depth style and didn't rapidly enough change back to this defense in depth strategy, that they used against the Arabs in part due to "pride". I doubt Isaac would be willing to and maybe not immediately know how to switch back to this defense in depth strategy but if anyone is able to force such a switch back it should be him or similarly Prestigeous relatives but would the rank and file take the hint?. I assume if the Turks gain the Armenian highlands and start raiding, a few Roman generals would be killed in battle, dying to their tactics.

From what i could recall, it’s not so much as pride as opposed to corruption, dynatoi stealing military land, neglect and many years of peace leading to soldiers becoming simply farmers that rendered a solid defence no longer possible. Not even the forts were properly maintained.Essentially a ghost army situation. Basically, defence in depth of Anatolia, but with what?

 

[PecuTheGreat]

From what i could recall, it’s not so much as pride as opposed to corruption, dynatoi stealing military land, neglect and many years of peace leading to soldiers becoming simply farmers that rendered a solid defence no longer possible. Not even the forts were properly maintained.Essentially a ghost army situation. Basically, defence in depth of Anatolia, but with what?

Oh, if it was largely due to negligence and corruption, I guess Isaac's rule should largely solve it.