Alternate History What If

[The Archregimancy]

'bout Empress Irene marrying Charlemagne?

That'd be a very interesting alternate history.

Although she'd probably have got deposed, as shocking as marrying a barbarian was.

As you probably know, Irene did raise this issue - and it may well have been one of the primary reasons why she was deposed by Nicephorus I in 802, though the sources aren't clear on this, and it's particularly hard to separate truth from propaganda here given Irene's status as the first woman to rule the Roman Empire entirely in her own right.

But there's a better candidate for a historical 'what if' involving intermarriage between the Byzantines and the Holy Roman Empire....

What if Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, son of the Byzantine Princess Theophana (herself closely related to Byzantine Emperors John I Tzimisces and Romanus II - though it's not clear what the precise relationship was), hadn't died at the age of 22?

Theophana was an important influence on Otto - serving as his regent between 984 (when Otto was all of four years old) and her death in 991. Otto deliberately tried to introduce Byzantine court ceremonial into the Holy Roman Empire, and explicitly attempted to model his state on Byzantine theocratic ideal models. Otto died when his own Byzantine bride - almost certainly Zoe, daughter of Constantine VIII (see earlier posts) - had just landed in Italy to prepare for the wedding; which certainly would have changed Byzantine history, as well as German history if it had gone ahead.

But instead, Otto - who had died while attempting to crush an Italian rebellion against his rule - was succeeded by his cousin Henry II. Henry is the only Holy Roman Emperor to have subsequently been made a Catholic saint, so we have to assume he had some qualities; but whatever they were, they didn't include a Byzantine mother, a future Byzantine wife, or much in the way of Byzantine influence. Any attempt to form a true synthesis between Byzantium and the early Holy Roman Empire died with Otto III in an Italian marsh in 1002.

[St George of England]

'bout Empress Irene marrying Charlemagne?

That'd be a very interesting alternate history.

Although she'd probably have got deposed, as shocking as marrying a barbarian was.

As you probably know, Irene did raise this issue - and it may well have been one of the primary reasons why she was deposed by Nicephorus I in 802, though the sources aren't clear on this, and it's particularly hard to separate truth from propaganda here given Irene's status as the first woman to rule the Roman Empire entirely in her own right.

But there's a better candidate for a historical 'what if' involving intermarriage between the Byzantines and the Holy Roman Empire....

What if Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, son of the Byzantine Princess Theophana (herself closely related to Byzantine Emperors John I Tzimisces and Romanus II - though it's not clear what the precise relationship was), hadn't died at the age of 22?

Theophana was an important influence on Otto - serving as his regent between 984 (when Otto was all of four years old) and her death in 991. Otto deliberately tried to introduce Byzantine court ceremonial into the Holy Roman Empire, and explicitly attempted to model his state on Byzantine theocratic ideal models. Otto died when his own Byzantine bride - almost certainly Zoe, daughter of Constantine VIII (see earlier posts) - had just landed in Italy to prepare for the wedding; which certainly would have changed Byzantine history, as well as German history if it had gone ahead.

But instead, Otto - who had died while attempting to crush an Italian rebellion against his rule - was succeeded by his cousin Henry II. Henry is the only Holy Roman Emperor to have subsequently been made a Catholic saint, so we have to assume he had some qualities; but whatever they were, they didn't include a Byzantine mother, a future Byzantine wife, or much in the way of Byzantine influence. Any attempt to form a true synthesis between Byzantium and the early Holy Roman Empire died with Otto III in an Italian marsh in 1002.

A slightly related What If...

What If Frederick Barbarossa hadn't drowned in that river in the 13th century. What would that have meant for the Byzantines and the Crusader States?

[Tagmatium]

Hmm, the more I think about the Byzantines, the more of these "What Ifs" get thrown up...

Admittedly, I've forgotten a lot of the Byzantine history I did know, but another one is George Maniakes, and what would have happened had he been more successful?

[The Archregimancy]

What If Frederick Barbarossa hadn't drowned in that river in the 13th century. What would that have meant for the Byzantines and the Crusader States?

Probably very little in the immediate term. The Third Crusade went ahead anyway.

Whether the presence of a strong German contingent led by the Emperor might have stopped some of the bickering between Richard I and Phillip II, and led to a more successful ultimate result - the total reconquest of the Crusader states, say, rather than stablisation of a coastal strip - is a more difficult issue, but I suspect that any military enterprise featuring three colossal egos on that scale would have been difficult to manage, no matter how genuinely gifted those egos were. But none of the three rulers were immediately interested in the Byzantine issue anyway, only in the Holy Land - though Frederick had cause to resent the Angeli, and Richard took Cyprus from its legitimate Byzantine rulers, so there might have been some subsequent fallout - but since we're less than 15 years from 1204 and the Fourth Crusade at this point anyway....

The longer-term consequences are harder to guess. Much would have depended on the influence of a longer-lived Frederick on his grandson Frederick II, one of the most mercurial of Holy Roman Emperors, who would later inherit the title 'King of Jerusalem' in his own right via his marriage to Isabella II, the legitimate queen of Jerusalem. Frederick II would later arrange for the temporary (1228-1244) transfer of Jerusalem back to the control of the Crusader Kingdom during the Sixth Crusade - but since he was excommunicated at the time, this didn't bring him too much credit back home in Europe.

[St George of England]

What If Frederick Barbarossa hadn't drowned in that river in the 13th century. What would that have meant for the Byzantines and the Crusader States?

Probably very little in the immediate term. The Third Crusade went ahead anyway.

Whether the presence of a strong German contingent led by the Emperor might have stopped some of the bickering between Richard I and Phillip II, and led to a more successful ultimate result - the total reconquest of the Crusader states, say, rather than stablisation of a coastal strip - is a more difficult issue, but I suspect that any military enterprise featuring three colossal egos on that scale would have been difficult to manage, no matter how genuinely gifted those egos were. But none of the three rulers were immediately interested in the Byzantine issue anyway, only in the Holy Land - though Frederick had cause to resent the Angeli, and Richard took Cyprus from its legitimate Byzantine rulers, so there might have been some subsequent fallout - but since we're less than 15 years from 1204 and the Fourth Crusade at this point anyway....

The longer-term consequences are harder to guess. Much would have depended on the influence of a longer-lived Frederick on his grandson Frederick II, one of the most mercurial of Holy Roman Emperors, who would later inherit the title 'King of Jerusalem' in his own right via his marriage to Isabella II, the legitimate queen of Jerusalem. Frederick II would later arrange for the temporary (1228-1244) transfer of Jerusalem back to the control of the Crusader Kingdom during the Sixth Crusade - but since he was excommunicated at the time, this didn't bring him too much credit back home in Europe.

The 100,000 men Frederick had with him would've helped alot. A lot of the problems between Philip and Richard would've been avoided if Frederick had lived. Both were junior monarchs, whilst Frederick had been on the throne for many years. As the most experienced monarch, with the largest numbers, he would've been commander-in-chief. As for Cyprus, it was ruled by a Byzantine rebel at the time, was it not? If anything Richard did the Emperor a favour.

[Tagmatium]

The 100,000 men Frederick had with him would've helped alot. A lot of the problems between Philip and Richard would've been avoided if Frederick had lived. Both were junior monarchs, whilst Frederick had been on the throne for many years. As the most experienced monarch, with the largest numbers, he would've been commander-in-chief. As for Cyprus, it was ruled by a Byzantine rebel at the time, was it not? If anything Richard did the Emperor a favour.

It would've still been considered Byzantine territory. If Richard had just handed it back to the Empire after taking it, there wouldn't have been a problem.

However, he didn't.

[The Archregimancy]

Hmm, the more I think about the Byzantines, the more of these "What Ifs" get thrown up...

Admittedly, I've forgotten a lot of the Byzantine history I did know, but another one is George Maniakes, and what would have happened had he been more successful?

Maniaces' rebellion against Constantine IX in 1043 came extremely close to success. He was actually winning the battle against the loyalist army near Thessalonica when he was wounded fatally. His army melted away with his death.

Maniaces was clearly a brilliant general - his Sicilian campaign from 1038-1042 was a work of genius, and proved that the Byzantine army was still very capable of impressive victories if suitably led.

However, his notorious inability to get along with senior staff, and his brutal torture (brutal even by the standards of the day; you don't want to know) of the brother of Constantine's mistress Maria Sclerina suggest a certain instability of character.

In terms of what ifs, I imagine that a militarily weak cultured spendthrift (Constantine IX) would have been replaced by a violent and possibly unstable militarily strong ruler ('George I') who probably wouldn't have lasted too long given his inability to get along with anyone, and his lack of a family connection to the still-living Theodora (Zoe had died in 1042). The court 'party' probably would have re-asserted itself fairly quickly.

[Tagmatium]

However, his notorious inability to get along with senior staff, and his brutal torture (brutal even by the standards of the day; you don't want to know) of the brother of Constantine's mistress Maria Sclerina suggest a certain instability of character.

Something a long the lines of force-feeding a replacement horse-poo, then doing other things to him, I recall.

He probably would have put to shame a few of the previous Byzantine Emperors with reputations for cruelty to shame.

[The Archregimancy]

The 100,000 men Frederick had with him would've helped alot. A lot of the problems between Philip and Richard would've been avoided if Frederick had lived. Both were junior monarchs, whilst Frederick had been on the throne for many years. As the most experienced monarch, with the largest numbers, he would've been commander-in-chief. As for Cyprus, it was ruled by a Byzantine rebel at the time, was it not? If anything Richard did the Emperor a favour.

It would've still been considered Byzantine territory. If Richard had just handed it back to the Empire after taking it, there wouldn't have been a problem.

However, he didn't.

No, he didn't - he instead handed it over to the disgraced Lusignan dynasty to be ruled as a new Crusader kingdom.

It's also probable that the '100,000 men' more likely consisted of about 15,000 men. '100,000' is almost certainly a historical exagerration; feeding 100,000 men crossing Anatolia by foot, and provisioning them from the land, seems at best unlikely. Furthermore, only 5,000 German crusaders reached the Principality of Antioch after Frederick's death - and it's hard to believe that 95,000 just melted away between the Saleph and Antioch.

Finally, anyone who thinks that Frederick could have simply asserted himself over Richard and Phillip one the basis of his 'seniority' probably doesn't know an awful lot about Richard and Phillip; neither were the sort of men who would happily accept playing second fiddle to anyone.

[Tagmatium]

It's also probable that the '100,000 men' more likely consisted of about 15,000 men. '100,000' is almost certainly a historical exagerration; feeding 100,000 men crossing Anatolia by foot, and provisioning them from the land, seems at best unlikely. Furthermore, only 5,000 German crusaders reached the Principality of Antioch after Frederick's death - and it's hard to believe that 95,000 just melted away between the Saleph and Antioch.

Got to love historical sources taken at face value.

[St George of England]

It's also probable that the '100,000 men' more likely consisted of about 15,000 men. '100,000' is almost certainly a historical exagerration; feeding 100,000 men crossing Anatolia by foot, and provisioning them from the land, seems at best unlikely. Furthermore, only 5,000 German crusaders reached the Principality of Antioch after Frederick's death - and it's hard to believe that 95,000 just melted away between the Saleph and Antioch.

Got to love historical sources taken at face value.

This was from a degree textbook. Whether or not it was 100,000 is a matter for historical debate. I would say it probably wasn't but definitely more 15,000. As for the disappearing men, well the Holy Roman Emperor wasn't chosen by birth. There was an 'election' to have, first, and the nobles would be needed in the Empire.

[Tagmatium]

This was from a degree textbook. Whether or not it was 100,000 is a matter for historical debate. I would say it probably wasn't but definitely more 15,000. As for the disappearing men, well the Holy Roman Emperor wasn't chosen by birth. There was an 'election' to have, first, and the nobles would be needed in the Empire.

Hmm.

The only book I've got to hand puts the numbers at between 100,000 and 150,000, but I've had the feeling before that the author tends to put too much reliance on written sources and also tends to be very biased towards the Byzantines (John Julius Norwich). I'll have a quick poke through the few other books I've got, but the number does seem ridiculously high. Not that that's an attempt to besmirch yourself, it's just that, as you're aware, most written sources are hideously biased and the numbers making up armies tends to be very exaggerated.

EDIT: And none of the others mention numbers. Bleh.

[The Archregimancy]

This was from a degree textbook. Whether or not it was 100,000 is a matter for historical debate. I would say it probably wasn't but definitely more 15,000. As for the disappearing men, well the Holy Roman Emperor wasn't chosen by birth. There was an 'election' to have, first, and the nobles would be needed in the Empire.

Yes, well... the difference here - if you'll forgive me for pointing this out - is that you read degree textbooks, and I write them.

Tagmatium is right to doubt John Julius Norwich's figures; Viscount Norwich writes vividly, and I've often enjoyed reading his books on Byzantine history, but most serious Byzantinists (see, for example, the intro to Warren Treadgold's History of the Byzantine State and Society) are fairly wary of him when it comes to accuracy.

As to the specific point under discussion... 100,000 is clearly a gross overestimate for Frederick's Army. 15,000 might be on the low side, but is a credible figure with many historians, though I've seen figures of up to 30,000 suggested. Also note that Frederick certainly added another 2,000 Hungarians to his base army when marching through Hungary, so 20,000 seems reasonable between Constantinople and the Saleph. But 100,000 just isn't logistically credible.

Your point about the elective nature of the Holy Roman Empire is anachronistically irrelevant. First of all, the title was largely hereditary under the Hohenstaufens, and only theoretically elective. The full theory and practice of a fully elective imperial throne didn't become codified until the Golden Bull of 1356. Secondly, your statement that 'nobles would be needed in the Empire' fails to account for how 95,000 men apparently spirited themselves out of the centre of Anatolia back to Germany without passing through either Constantinople or Antioch, and without any fleet to take them back home again. It also completely ignores the fact that Frederick I's son Henry VI was crowned co-ruler in 1169 when Henry was still only four, and inherited his father's full titles without an election in 1190 when Frederick died.

[St George of England]

This was from a degree textbook. Whether or not it was 100,000 is a matter for historical debate. I would say it probably wasn't but definitely more 15,000. As for the disappearing men, well the Holy Roman Emperor wasn't chosen by birth. There was an 'election' to have, first, and the nobles would be needed in the Empire.

Yes, well... the difference here - if you'll forgive me for pointing this out - is that you read degree textbooks, and I write them.

Tagmatium is right to doubt John Julius Norwich's figures; Viscount Norwich writes vividly, and I've often enjoyed reading his books on Byzantine history, but most serious Byzantinists (see, for example, the intro to Warren Treadgold's History of the Byzantine State and Society) are fairly wary of him when it comes to accuracy.

As to the specific point under discussion... 100,000 is clearly a gross overestimate for Frederick's Army. 15,000 might be on the low side, but is a credible figure with many historians, though I've seen figures of up to 30,000 suggested. Also note that Frederick certainly added another 2,000 Hungarians to his base army when marching through Hungary, so 20,000 seems reasonable between Constantinople and the Saleph. But 100,000 just isn't logistically credible.

Your point about the elective nature of the Holy Roman Empire is anachronistically irrelevant. First of all, the title was largely hereditary under the Hohenstaufens, and only theoretically elective. The full theory and practice of a fully elective imperial throne didn't become codified until the Golden Bull of 1356. Secondly, your statement that 'nobles would be needed in the Empire' fails to account for how 95,000 men apparently spirited themselves out of the centre of Anatolia back to Germany without passing through either Constantinople or Antioch, and without any fleet to take them back home again. It also completely ignores the fact that Frederick I's son Henry VI was crowned co-ruler in 1169 when Henry was still only four, and inherited his father's full titles without an election in 1190 when Frederick died.

no offence taken. my knowledge of the byzantines isn't that great, and the textbook was one on the crusades, not byzantine history. agreed over the 100,000 men figure. I had seen it in a textbook that wasn't actually very useful for me during my studies. is there really no evidence of even a few thousand germans making their way home after Frederick's death? I suppose not, if there was no election to fight.

[Tagmatium]

no offence taken. my knowledge of the byzantines isn't that great, and the textbook was one on the crusades, not byzantine history. agreed over the 100,000 men figure. I had seen it in a textbook that wasn't actually very useful for me during my studies. is there really no evidence of even a few thousand germans making their way home after Frederick's death? I suppose not, if there was no election to fight.

Election or no, there probably would have been men who wanted to go home after the Crusade was over. After all, a good portion of the crusaders went home after the First Crusade suceeded, thinking that the job was done.

An election would've meant little to a lot of the German crusaders, as they wouldn't have been able to participate in any election.

[Dyakovo]

I have a better one: what if I had bought fruit loops instead of cinnamon toast crunch the other day? Would we all be speaking German today?

Yes.
*nods*

[Brauzillia]

What if the Anglo-Saxons didn't loose England

[St George of England]

What if the Anglo-Saxons didn't loose England

A tough one that. On the one hand the Civil Unrest of the 14th and 15th centuries wouldn't have happened but, on the other, we wouldn't have had the great monarchs of the time: Edward III, Henry V, Henry VII, Elizabeth I.

[Aryan Republics of Ame]

what if France and Britain abandoned Poland to the Germans in 39?

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

What if anyone really had been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[New Chalcedon]

Thanks for the spam-fest, you lot.....not.

[Yellow Zone 20-A]

What if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_I,_Duke_of_Brabant had become king of France?