Hence the idea I had of an English Empress badgering her older kingly brother to the point of annoyance in sending forces. We all know what lengths a sister will go through to get you to do something you don't want to 🤣🤣🤣
Our Fractured Crown: An Eastern Roman Timeline
- Thread starter Averious
- Start date
Exactly! England can give Rome assistance, it's the christian thing to do, reinforces the alliance and it will stop the constant nagging from the empress to her brother
Glad you enjoyed it!
I feel the need to point out that the sons of Edward III, some of which are still being born (ala Thomas of Woodstock, born 1355), are all unmarried... and John V has an unmarried younger sister.
Added, John and Edward of Woodstock (the Black Prince) are indeed the same age--which will come up in the next piece of 'media' released.
Last edited:
Maybe a double marriage comes out of discussions between the English and Romans? The Romans get a English Princess while an Imperial Princess is sent to England. It would increase the prestige of Edward III if a son of his is married to an Imperial Princess. I can imagine all the letters being sent back telling John V all about the whole British Isles 😀😀.
Of course; letters applently.
I'm sure these marriages won't lead to strife down the line.
So long as Edward the Black Prince lives long enough to become Edward IV of England (and France). His children need to be old enough to escape a regency (all the nobles come out with knives looking for influence over the young monarch) and have received basic instruction to at least be an average ruler.
It would be interesting seeing how France fares, especially with Charles V coming around the corner in a couple years, with the introduction of a Roman lady into the mix.
Last edited:
They won't be able to do much agaisnt rome because then they would be the pariahs of the catholic world. How bad would they look if they went agaisnt a rome that's getting itself together again to defent christianity from heathens?
Now THIS is a TL. Really enjoying this. Byzantium TLs are the burgers of this website, because they're always in fashion and are at least decent even when they're not that good. But this is wagyu on homemade sourdough level of burger. Very plausible set of PODs and not a total wank.
EDIT: With Serbia in turmoil, will the Romans secure the rest of Macedonia + Albania? Now would be the perfect time to put a more permanent bow on the empire's european borders.
EDIT: With Serbia in turmoil, will the Romans secure the rest of Macedonia + Albania? Now would be the perfect time to put a more permanent bow on the empire's european borders.
Last edited:
I expect borders look something like this with the rest of Serbia made a client state, annexation can come later:
Attachments
There may be a Serbian rump state, but whatever the Romans don't take will likely be gobbled up by Bulgaria.
One thing i cannot wait is for the Habsburgs to appear! Frederick III and his family will have a much easier time in germany without the ottomans beign the boogeyman of europe.
How easier of a time will they really have? Didn't they at least gain prestige from fighting the Ottomans in the eyes of the rest of Europe?
They would combat the reformation. And build the german identity in the image of austria.
I am really enjoying the story here and I am glad you resumed this TL. Very detailed, with lots of characters and things going on but without getting bogged down in unnecessary minutiae. Also the fact that you are treating the empire as it should be (just a regional power in a sea of neighboring equals) instead of a superpower ready to expand without any difficulty is something I appreciate here.
Just a minor nitpick, a few chapters ago you wrote "sorde eretico" but I guess your intent was to use the plural. Now I am not 100% sure (since the character talking was genoese and I am venetian) but it probably should be "sordi eretici". But honestly no big deal.
I pretty much agree with Nuraghe here, I personally rank Manuel quite highly but that is a discussion for another thread.
Just a minor nitpick, a few chapters ago you wrote "sorde eretico" but I guess your intent was to use the plural. Now I am not 100% sure (since the character talking was genoese and I am venetian) but it probably should be "sordi eretici". But honestly no big deal.
Honestly, the fact that Michael VIII was so capable as a person and not a complete incompetent (though had he been he would never have been able to create the longest lasting dynasty in Roman history, a fact which is certainly ironic) kind of makes his failure even worse.
The thing is, those were severely damaging to the Empire, so no matter how capable Michael VIII was, it still very much damns him in hindsight in my eyes. But here's some points about that:
1) The blinding of John IV. If that were the only thing he did, that could've been smoothed over in time.
2) He didn't fully abandon Anatolia. He did campaign there. He just focused on Europe far more than he probably should have in hindsight. Also, in fairness to him, he did have to deal with a Latin invasion in the last years of his reign, so there was good reason to focus there. And of course, the enemy that would ultimately destroy the empire wouldn't even emerge until Andronikos II's reign. It was also hard to judge the nature of the threat the Turks faced with the fracturing of the Sultanate of Rum during his reign.
3) The Forced Union really, I think damns him fully. This really fully solidified the divisions within the Empire, however, I've yet to see any sources pointing toward the union affecting the public's perception of the dynasty right up until the fall of the city. The Union was abandoned right after Michael's reign and his memory was damned if my memory serves me (which it might not; my family isn't known for having a good memory).
Ultimately, you can have the potential to be a fantastic emperor, but still end up a disaster for the Empire.
As for Andronikos II, I know very little about him outside of his track record, so it's really hard to judge him on a personal level. Maybe he would've been a better emperor had he ruled in better times? Or perhaps not.
However, the tone of his reign was decided by the actions of Michael VIII. Had Michael VIII not pushed through the Union, Andronikos II would not have had his administration paralyzed right from the outset by the need to clean up the divisive mess left in it's wake.
So no, I don't think that had Andronikos III been emperor in 1282 the Empire would've avoided the disasters of his grandfather's reign as his administration would've been just as hamstrung by the legacy of Michael VIII.
Also, the Angeloi did not break Manuel Komnenos's empire. That was actually Andronikos I Komnenos.
it is very difficult for them to have a career like Otl, it is not even certain that they will be able to obtain the imperial crown in the future, HRE will probably remain in the hands of the Luxembourgers, which would not be a bad thing, given that it would mean a continuity and dynastic stability brought forward by a century (as much as it is worth in an elective monarchy) and that it would strengthen the imperial position given that Bohemia alone was a very important dominion ( if we exclude the various minor possessions in the hands of the Luxembourg cadets ), then the addition of the Hungary by Sigismund, would only have improved the imperial position in the relationship with the princes ( only Wenceslas' government would have been avoided, which was a disaster for the Empire )
Last edited:
Sigismund was good so i wouldn't mind that. but really hoping for the habsburgs to get it, huge fan of them, specially maximilian I
The Union was abandoned by Andronikos II in an act of pragmatism, but it still left a bad taste in the mouth of the inhabitants of the Empire; that, added to by the various civil wars that followed, and then the Union being imposed again later, left the Palaiologi in this interesting position of their own citizens disliking them (according to the sources I have), while said citizens also never considered actually getting rid of them.
Which is quite interesting--they ended up becoming an institution of the state unto themselves--to the point that no one ever seriously considered overthrowing them; much like the Macedonian Emperors.
As for Michael VIII's hand-off to Andronikos II? The state was in decent, not great, shape upon the hand-off; it had an army, and a navy--not potent, but strong enough to get the job done--Andronikos took this and downsized it over, and over again throughout his reign in a bid to save money that he was himself wasting on various failed ventures in diplomacy; he never actually made a proper attempt to rule as he needed to, and after marrying his second wife Yolande of Montferrat he began the further feudalisation of the Empire at her behest--which effectively cut the Emperor's access to revenues and akin.
Note, this feudalisation is why Andronikos III in this TL had a 'Baron's War' against him when he made moves to hack away at it.
Andronikos II was also extremely paranoid and spiteful; regularly getting rid of skilled commanders, generals and officials who he felt overshadowed by, and threatened by, whenever they succeeded--which penalised victory, and made sure any that were gained were quickly lost because they couldn't be followed up or held onto.
Added--yes, the Angeloi did break the Empire, just not in a key singular event like Andronikos I--their breaking of the Empire came from two decades of consistently bad policies that alienated their population, released the Bulgarian Empire back unto the Balkans, and more. Unlike Andronikos they weren't a quick burn that might have been patched--they slowly ate away at the foundations of the Empire, and continued to do so even after 1204 until their dynasty died out.
Last edited: