WI: King Emeric of Hungary survives?

King Emeric (Imre) Arpad, eldest son of King Bela III, was King of Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia and Dalmatia from his father's death in 1194 to his own death in 1204. During his reign, he was nearly always at war with his brother, the future Andrew II. When he unexpectedly died, he was succeeded by his 5 year old son Ladislaus (Laszlo) III. He had appointed Andrew as regent, making him promise to look after the young king. The next year, Ladislaus conveniently died and Andrew succeeded to the throne. His mother, Constance of Aragon would flee to Austria and later marry Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II.

What 'ripples' would there be if Emeric had not died when he did OTL or had been more successful against Andrew earlier (e.g. Andrew dying)? Without OTL Bela IV, would Hungary have gone through the Mongol invasions better, worse or the same under Ladislaus III.

Always a fan of underdogs, I'm asking this partly because I'm planning on involving the Emeric-Andrew feud in the next update or two for my latest TL: 'Aima! Drasis! Bloody prophecies!' (link's below :D) Personally, being five years old, young Ladislaus is practically a cipher, a blank slate.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=315771
 
Bumping for interest. Since we know nothing about Ladislaus III, we should bring the topic back to the effects of Emeric surviving.
 
Bump for interest. Ignore the link to my old ATL.

If Emeric lives longer, long enough for Ladislaus to come of age and/or deal with his brother, Andrew, might this lead to the Arpads avoiding giving up much of their power and privileges to the Hungarian nobility, like what happen IOTL under Andrew II and Bela IV?

Also, as I understand it, Emeric was more focused on Bulgaria and Serbia than his brother, who focused more on conquering the Russian Principality of Halych for himself and his sons. In fact, Emeric claimed the title "King of Serbia". Assuming he, or his descendants, eventually becomes that in fact as well as in name, that could lead to some interesting dynamics in the already fractured Balkans.
 
Last edited:
However disastrous Emeric's and Ladislaus III's reigns could have been, they wouldn't have been worse than Andrew II's. It's been a while since I last read about them, but I distinctly remember Emeric continuing his father's policies of centralization and institution-building, while Andrew II scrapped that and almost single-handedly feudalized Hungary, decentralizing the kingdom and destroying royal authority. Inheriting a legacy of Béla III and Emeric, Ladislaus III would have been far better equipped to deal with the Mongols, who dealt the death blow to the Arpad dynasty even though Béla IV was a competent king; Andrew II had just been too bad.
 
However disastrous Emeric's and Ladislaus III's reigns could have been, they wouldn't have been worse than Andrew II's. It's been a while since I last read about them, but I distinctly remember Emeric continuing his father's policies of centralization and institution-building, while Andrew II scrapped that and almost single-handedly feudalized Hungary, decentralizing the kingdom and destroying royal authority. Inheriting a legacy of Béla III and Emeric, Ladislaus III would have been far better equipped to deal with the Mongols, who dealt the death blow to the Arpad dynasty even though Béla IV was a competent king; Andrew II had just been too bad.

So Bela III & Emeric were sort of the Hungarian equivalent of Philip Augustus, to use a contemporary analysis? So them surviving could produce very interesting butterflies, especially if the Mongols make it as far as they did IOTL. Many of the Mongols' victims seemed to lose partly because they were disunited. Then again, the Shah of Khwarezm had centralised his army under him and look how that turned out. And then there were the Jin and Song dynasties. Not too sure how unified/centralised the Mamluk Sultanate was, but they definitely had more than the terrain on their side against the Ilkhanate.

If Emeric survives, I could see him having at least one more child with Constance of Aragon. I'm surprised that they only had one child in 8 years of marriage, when both were fairly young and at a time when monarchs were expected to have at least one heir. Maybe the civil wars he'd gone through with Andrew influenced him a bit in that regard. And, although he might have styled himself King of Serbia, it could be better to defeat them but not conquer them, as it could open up a whole can of worms about religion and ethnicities.

As for who Ladislaus III might marry, I'd guess one of Philip of Swabia's daughters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_of_Swabia#Family), or one of the Latin Emperor Baldwin's Courtenay nieces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_II_of_Courtenay#Family), Elisabeth, Yolanda or Maria. Of course, that could always depend on who, between Philip of Swabia and Otto of Brunswick, is winning and/or who has the Pope's support.

Finally, personally, the more I read about Emeric, Andrew and Ladislaus, the more I start thinking about "The Lion King". Is that weird?
 
Top