StarDestroyer.Net BBS

My brief understanding of Otto III and the Ottonian dynasty is mainly through general works on that period, and given most of the works on them is in German, I do no one mind me asking a few question about them.

Otto III was a well known romanophile, and he undertook various reforms to "rebuild" the western roman empire before his death. One thing that interest me is his betrothal to the Byzantinian princess Zoe. Given that Basil II produced no heir and Constantine VIII only produced daughters, what are the short term ramifications for the Byzantine empire if Otto survived till 1028 and produced a son with Zoe?

Would the Byzantine approve of an emperor with a German emperor and Byzantine princess?

I very much doubt that as he would not have been borne in purple, nor have had the propaganda apparatus prepare the populace for his rule, nor would he have had time to gain the support of the palace factions or the military. Far more likely a general comes to power eventually, as happened historically.

It might however give the Ottonian empire a pretext to wage war and gain more of the Byzantine territories.

Hmm, I see.

Would such a scenario help in re-conciliating the orthodox church and the catholic church? Given Otto's history, he might see the unification of the churches legitimating his title as the western Roman emperor.

How would he get either side to compromise or submit to the rule of the other?

Point taken.

Do you know about any good books on the Ottonian dynasty? There seems to be very few books covering that topic in english.

Not in english, no.

I've always thought the prospective rule of Bela III as Byzantine Emperor would have been a better point of divergence, since the death of his elder brother without a heir would have created a Byzanto-Hungarian Dual Monarchy that would have at least notionally still had the power to dominate a huge swath of Europe. And Hungarian troops under the Heir to the Throne marching with the Byzantine Army to Myriokephalon might have made the difference.

I think they would have definitely made a difference, but the Bela thing still suffers from the fact that outsiders did not do well in the Byzantine court.

Thanas wrote:I think they would have definitely made a difference, but the Bela thing still suffers from the fact that outsiders did not do well in the Byzantine court.

I'd also think that would be a significant weakness to the proposed divergence. The Byzantine's diasters seemed to be more related to internal strife making them vulnerable to external foes than being overcome by main force. The disasters of 1071, 1204 and 1341 all had that in common.

By that token, its not winning or losing Myriokephalon that really matters, it was more a missed opportunity to finish off the Anatolian Turks while the Empire was strong than a real debacle. The Empire was still in a strong position in 1180. Its that there was no capable successor to Manual Komenos, as Alexios, Andronikos and the Angeloi were all complete failures.

I'd think if you want the Byzantines to last though you have to find a way to solve that problem. How to keep the whole thing from flying apart when there is a succession crisis.

Well, the Empire under Bela would probably remain stable--he was one of the bright spots of the Hungarian monarchy in the middle ages by any standard--and if Anatolia is reconquered and the Second Bulgarian Empire crushed in its nascent formation stage, the Fourth Crusade is an absurd non-starter and the Empire is looking in very good shape. This, of course, does nothing at all against the Mongols. I expect religious disputes between the Hungarian and Byzantine halves of the realm would lead to its relatively quick sundering in the wake of Bela III's death, though if he has two sons with his Byzantine wife I'd expect him to preempt them assigning one throne to each heir, or for it to fairly quickly split along those lines anyway. This may help with the Mongols if Hungary and the Empire are not the same state -- though I doubt the ability of the Mongolian armies to take Constantinople by siege in any case.

The Anatolian heartland might well be devastated by them -- but the Mongols were reaching their limits and they might just as well seek Byzantine alliance against Alp Arslan. Or he would, against the Mongols. The "combinations" become enormously great at that stage, beyond real speculation, but depending on the quality of the leadership generated by the Arpad heirs things might not be lost.

Even if the Mongols wreck most of the country, having crushed the Turks in Anatolia gives an inestimable amount of breathing time for a recovery from the Mongols/predatory western invasions subsequent to them / yet another Bulgarian rising.

I doubt the ability of the Mongolian armies to take Constantinople by siege in any case.

How would they even pass to the European side, at any rate? It's not like the Byzantine navy was so incompetent as to let them build the boats they'd need.

Actually the Mongols tried to get an alliance with the Byzantines in any case, like they did with the crusader states.

Hell, they tried to get an 'alliance' (as they defined it) with the Pope. I read the text on Wiki and I think it's hilarious, the Pope is talking about Christ and such while the Mongols are all gangsta rap and we gunna fuk u up. It's so funny because the Mongols here are impotent, as they'd have no way of reaching Rome.

Yeah. Then I think about what they did to all those they could reach, and it ain't funny anymore.

Dr. Trainwreck wrote:

I doubt the ability of the Mongolian armies to take Constantinople by siege in any case.

How would they even pass to the European side, at any rate? It's not like the Byzantine navy was so incompetent as to let them build the boats they'd need.

I meant during the invasion of Europe, not the invasion of the Near East.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Dr. Trainwreck wrote:

I doubt the ability of the Mongolian armies to take Constantinople by siege in any case.

How would they even pass to the European side, at any rate? It's not like the Byzantine navy was so incompetent as to let them build the boats they'd need.

I meant during the invasion of Europe, not the invasion of the Near East.

Its theoretically possible for them to go either way, but history showed that Constantiople was a fair bit beyond the Mongol's grasp from their logisitical base on the steppe. Horse based armies struggle when they run out of fodder and the Byzantines were masters of holding out behind fortifications. Noti to mention that to knock them out in a Mongol style campaign they'd have to take Constantinople and that's all but impossible to do pre-gunpowder against an entrenched foe that has command of the sea.

I'd think the worst the Mongols would do to a strong Byzantine Empire is inflict another Manzikert, a temporarily crippling but recoverable blow.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I meant during the invasion of Europe, not the invasion of the Near East.

Oh. I was misled by the talk about Alp Arslan and Anatolia. Even if they tried to come through the Balkans anyway, a competent commander could have ambushed them somewhere on the mountains, and beat them dead. Whether Byzantium had any general or emperor up to the task at that period is debatable. Earlier rulers, like Tzimisces or Basil B' the Bulgarslayer (alliteration! ), could have pulled it off.