AHC: Everything Goes Right For Emperor Michael VIII Paleologos

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Your challenge should you choose to accept is to devise a scenario where the Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII has more things go right for him.

In otl Michael VIII was a very successful ruler who did the best he could given his current situation, and through cunning and ruthlessness he achieved all of his aims. But despite the seemingly advantageous position he left the Empire in, the supposed success of the start of the Palaiologian Renaissance, was hollow if anything. The Empire was still surrounded on all sides by its enemies and its attention was divided onto multiple fronts.

Within the Empire a large swathe of the population was alienated from the Emperor for his unpopular policies. Within Anatolia particularly, he had alienated a lot of people with his decision to blind and depose the child emperor Ioannes IV Laskaris to the point that it led to the Aresnite Schism. Michael then faced a revolt in Anatolia which he eventually crushed, but it came at the cost of him eroding its local defense structure setup by the Laskarids.

He also agreed to a Church Union with the West which ended up alienating a lot of people to the point that he couldn't even be buried within Constantinople. At certain points in his reign he tried to militarily intervene in Bulgaria to exploit its issues but those attempts were largely for naught.

 

[Happiness]

He tried to intervene in the internal politics of Bulgaria by offering his daughter Irina Paleologina to one of the contenders for the Bulgarian throne, Tsar Ivaylo, but he refused and married the emperor's niece, Maria Paleologina. She somewhat confused Michael's s plans, but after a year Ivaylo was deposed form Ivan Asen III, the son of Mitso Asen and his wife Maria Asenina (daughter of Ivan Asen II's third marriage with Irina Komnina), who ascended the throne. He had a strong claim to the throne from the pig farmer Ivaylo . Eventually, Irina Paleologina married Ivan Asen III, but he was only king for a year, and because he was like his father (he has no qualities of a diplomat and a soldier) , he and his wife took the treasury and fled to Constantinople. If the short-lived Bulgarian tsar had been less intelligent and more skillful, the emperor's daughter would have been queen of Bulgaria for a longer time and her father could have controlled his son-in-law.

 

[LMLost9]

He also agreed to a Church Union with the West which ended up alienating a lot of people to the point that he couldn't even be buried within Constantinople. At certain points in his reign he tried to militarily intervene in Bulgaria to exploit its issues but those attempts were largely for naught.

Trying to unite the church was probably his worst movement, since the latins kept being hostile to the Empire, so obviously avoid it.

Better scouting could prevent the battle of Devina, and help consolidate the power of Ivan Asen III, I'm not sure how successful would they be in dealing with George Terteri, in the best case scenario he doesn't get support from Nogai Khan. Anyways the empire will probably have to deal with him at some point, I wonder how successful could the empire be at dealing with the mongols.

Having Manfred of Sicily defeat Charles of Anjou at Benevento would make the things for the empire just so much easier, shorter wars, better finances, and in this case Michael would probably not search for the reunion of the churches.

Get rid of Andronikos somehow, do not name him co-emperor, idk blind him or something, you're just so popular that people would probably accept it, or a conspiracy to kill him. I know this may be way too ruthless, but it's the best for the empire. Constantine seemed pretty competent, both militarily and administratively, and he was born in the purple, he could be the perfect emperor.

Succeeding at so many of his enterprises in a desperate moment would probably put Michael in the lights of Basil II and Leo III, being remembered as one of the best emperors in the history of the empire.

 

[Andristan]

Maybe dont blind and depose baby john but be co-ruler like Tzimiskes back in basil bulgarslayers days, then step aside for the legit emperor.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Get rid of Andronikos somehow, do not name him co-emperor, idk blind him or something, you're just so popular that people would probably accept it, or a conspiracy to kill him. I know this may be way too ruthless, but it's the best for the empire. Constantine seemed pretty competent, both militarily and administratively, and he was born in the purple, he could be the perfect emperor.

Ngl this seems out of character for Michael. Plus killing your own son is something that wouldn't fly even if you were say as popular as Heraclius after his victory over the Persians. Andronikos II hadn't really done anything wrong unlike Constantine XI's brother Demetrios who openly engaged in plots to depose him.

Maybe dont blind and depose baby john but be co-ruler like Tzimiskes back in basil bulgarslayers days, then step aside for the legit emperor.

Honestly I don't really see this happening. Michael might have favored Constantine for being a "Poryphorygenitos" but that doesn't mean he hated or didn't love Andronikos. And despite the flack he got in otl. Under the right circumstances he probably could have made a somewhat decent peacetime Emperor.

Though I can see Ioannes IV if left alive getting sidelined by Andronikos and Constantine, Michael's sons like what almost happened to Constantine VII.

Michael VIII was committed to his family and would have wanted to elevate them considering how he too was a traditional aristocrat in the mold of the Komnenoi of old. Ngl I could see a power struggle develop between Michael's sons and Ioannes IV.

If there's no Arenite Schism and Michael has a better reputation while keeping Ioannes as a sort of do-nothing "palace prince" away from the levers of power, and under close supervision, the Palaiologoi could probably more seamlessly depose of the Laskarids by eventually coercing Ioannes to go into a monastery or something.

Having Manfred of Sicily defeat Charles of Anjou at Benevento would make the things for the empire just so much easier, shorter wars, better finances, and in this case Michael would probably not search for the reunion of the churches.

That would probably be a huge upturn in Michael's fortunes allowing him to devote more time to Anatolia. This combined with not deposing Ioannes IV would mean the locals there would be more content with the Palaiologoi who'd have more legitimacy.

He tried to intervene in the internal politics of Bulgaria by offering his daughter Irina Paleologina to one of the contenders for the Bulgarian throne, Tsar Ivaylo, but he refused and married the emperor's niece, Maria Paleologina. She somewhat confused Michael's s plans, but after a year Ivaylo was deposed form Ivan Asen III, the son of Mitso Asen and his wife Maria Asenina (daughter of Ivan Asen II's third marriage with Irina Komnina), who ascended the throne. He had a strong claim to the throne from the pig farmer Ivaylo . Eventually, Irina Paleologina married Ivan Asen III, but he was only king for a year, and because he was like his father (he has no qualities of a diplomat and a soldier) , he and his wife took the treasury and fled to Constantinople. If the short-lived Bulgarian tsar had been less intelligent and more skillful, the emperor's daughter would have been queen of Bulgaria for a longer time and her father could have controlled his son-in-law.

How do you think this de-facto Vassalized Bulgaria would have functioned in relation to the Empire? Do you think it could have eventually used Bulgaria's weakness to eventually outright reconquer it?

 

[Happiness]

Ngl this seems out of character for Michael. Plus killing your own son is something that wouldn't fly even if you were say as popular as Heraclius after his victory over the Persians. Andronikos II hadn't really done anything wrong unlike Constantine XI's brother Demetrios who openly engaged in plots to depose him.


Honestly I don't really see this happening. Michael might have favored Constantine for being a "Poryphorygenitos" but that doesn't mean he hated or didn't love Andronikos. And despite the flack he got in otl. Under the right circumstances he probably could have made a somewhat decent peacetime Emperor.

Though I can see Ioannes IV if left alive getting sidelined by Andronikos and Constantine, Michael's sons like what almost happened to Constantine VII.

Michael VIII was committed to his family and would have wanted to elevate them considering how he too was a traditional aristocrat in the mold of the Komnenoi of old. Ngl I could see a power struggle develop between Michael's sons and Ioannes IV.

If there's no Arenite Schism and Michael has a better reputation while keeping Ioannes as a sort of do-nothing "palace prince" away from the levers of power, and under close supervision, the Palaiologoi could probably more seamlessly depose of the Laskarids by eventually coercing Ioannes to go into a monastery or something.


That would probably be a huge upturn in Michael's fortunes allowing him to devote more time to Anatolia. This combined with not deposing Ioannes IV would mean the locals there would be more content with the Palaiologoi who'd have more legitimacy.


How do you think this de-facto Vassalized Bulgaria would have functioned in relation to the Empire? Do you think it could have eventually used Bulgaria's weakness to eventually outright reconquer it?

It depends on how much the Bulgarian ruler fulfills his loyalty to the emperor. Ivan Assen III had no sense of politics (one of his mistakes was that he gave his sister Kira-Maria to George Terter and gave him the title of despot) and Michael could easily manipulate him to his advantage. His daughter Irina will certainly assist her father and can easily make her husband carry out the emperor's orders. If this happens, Byzantium will have a strong influence on Bulgaria. But one should not ignore the fact that there is always a possibility that the boyars will rebel and overthrow Ivan Asen III. The Bulgarians will not surrender without a fight.

 

[Evil Crusader]

The true thing Michael needed to go right was the Battle of Benevento. Kill off Charles d'Anjou, and everything is already better. No money to be wasted on fueling the Sicilian Vespers, no constant paranoia of an existential threat coming to re-estabilish the Latin Empire any second now, all the attention can be devoted to Bulgaria and, far more crucially, to the Turkish threat.
Then, make Pope Gregory's death happen later. Now, the proposal of a reunion can have military backing, and while tensions will stay high, there is no other way to start healing the schism between East and West. Byzantium's prospects are made much better from not having to sweet-talk the Pope into not crusading for Byzantium every five seconds.
Stuff will be still tough, but at least this scenario has the western flank secured, more money to spend, and an eye fixed on where the other existential threat is slowly brewing up.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

It depends on how much the Bulgarian ruler fulfills his loyalty to the emperor. Ivan Assen III had no sense of politics (one of his mistakes was that he gave his sister Kira-Maria to George Terter and gave him the title of despot) and Michael could easily manipulate him to his advantage. His daughter Irina will certainly assist her father and can easily make her husband carry out the emperor's orders. If this happens, Byzantium will have a strong influence on Bulgaria.

Speaking of strengthening Byzantine power through marriage, Michael VIII almost got a marriage between his son, Andronikos II and Isabella of Villehardouin, the daughter of Prince William II of Achaia. If that goes through then that would mean that the Frankish rulers in greece would largely switch over to the side of the Romans. In otl Isabel married the Despot of Epirus, giving it allies in the face of Byzantine advances, but since William II had no sons, then that would effectively mean that the Romans have a means to sink their claws into Greece proper through Margaret.

In otl William's title's passed to Charles of Anjou who was also the reigning King of Sicily at the time. But this changes things greatly since William II's support was instrumental for Charles' victory during the Battle of Tagliacozzo. William II was a key advisor for Charles in terms of his tactics and he did provide him with around 400 or so knights. Assuming Charles loses that would now mean Conrad the legitimate King of Sicily and the Duke of Swabia now is back in charge leaving the Papacy almost right back where it started with Frederick II.

This improves Michael VIII's position immensely as Conradin while is sitting in Palermo as the legitimate King of Sicily, he can't sit there comfortably as he has an actively hostile Pope on his back getting ready to stir up trouble the moment he leaves Italy. Conradin's victory over the Papacy and in Italy changes things dramatically as he's also technically have a claim to what was left of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Assuming he advances on Rome, he could possibly force the Pope to name and Crown him as King of Germany. Conradin has a pretty strong base there too with allies such as his uncle Louis II of Upper Bavaria, his stepfather Meihard II the duke of Carinthia, and his childhood friend Frederick I of Baden.

Michael VIII in the short term has breathing room in Italy, but it once again sets up the stage for the Holy Roman Empire and the Sicilian Kingdom to emerge as a powerful rival right on his doorstep. Though assuming Michael VIII does manage to gain absolute hegemony in the Balkans, Andronikos II might have a smoother and more peaceful reign in Europe allowing him to devote more attention towards Anatolia,

But one should not ignore the fact that there is always a possibility that the boyars will rebel and overthrow Ivan Asen III. The Bulgarians will not surrender without a fight.

Assuming the Romans are determined to reconquer Bulgaria, do you think such a thing could be accomplished during the reigns of Andronikos II, or even Michael's?

Then, make Pope Gregory's death happen later. Now, the proposal of a reunion can have military backing, and while tensions will stay high, there is no other way to start healing the schism between East and West.

Is that really a wise decision for Byzantium though? It deeply divided the population with prominent members of the Palaiologian family siding against it such as Michael's sister. Michael VIII himself wasn't really even all for it, as he later got excommunicated for refusing to forcefully impose the Church union across the whole empire. To lthe Romans, the idea of returning to a union with the "Latins" on their terms was an insult.

Though assuming Papal and Byzantine relations normalize over a later period, do you think it possible that the schism be resolved through a more negotiated settlement along the lines of the pre 1054 status quo?

 

[Happiness]

Speaking of strengthening Byzantine power through marriage, Michael VIII almost got a marriage between his son, Andronikos II and Isabella of Villehardouin, the daughter of Prince William II of Achaia. If that goes through then that would mean that the Frankish rulers in greece would largely switch over to the side of the Romans. In otl Isabel married the Despot of Epirus, giving it allies in the face of Byzantine advances, but since William II had no sons, then that would effectively mean that the Romans have a means to sink their claws into Greece proper through Margaret.

In otl William's title's passed to Charles of Anjou who was also the reigning King of Sicily at the time. But this changes things greatly since William II's support was instrumental for Charles' victory during the Battle of Tagliacozzo. William II was a key advisor for Charles in terms of his tactics and he did provide him with around 400 or so knights. Assuming Charles loses that would now mean Conrad the legitimate King of Sicily and the Duke of Swabia now is back in charge leaving the Papacy almost right back where it started with Frederick II.

This improves Michael VIII's position immensely as Conradin while is sitting in Palermo as the legitimate King of Sicily, he can't sit there comfortably as he has an actively hostile Pope on his back getting ready to stir up trouble the moment he leaves Italy. Conradin's victory over the Papacy and in Italy changes things dramatically as he's also technically have a claim to what was left of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Assuming he advances on Rome, he could possibly force the Pope to name and Crown him as King of Germany. Conradin has a pretty strong base there too with allies such as his uncle Louis II of Upper Bavaria, his stepfather Meihard II the duke of Carinthia, and his childhood friend Frederick I of Baden.

Michael VIII in the short term has breathing room in Italy, but it once again sets up the stage for the Holy Roman Empire and the Sicilian Kingdom to emerge as a powerful rival right on his doorstep. Though assuming Michael VIII does manage to gain absolute hegemony in the Balkans, Andronikos II might have a smoother and more peaceful reign in Europe allowing him to devote more attention towards Anatolia,


Assuming the Romans are determined to reconquer Bulgaria, do you think such a thing could be accomplished during the reigns of Andronikos II, or even Michael's?


Is that really a wise decision for Byzantium though? It deeply divided the population with prominent members of the Palaiologian family siding against it such as Michael's sister. Michael VIII himself wasn't really even all for it, as he later got excommunicated for refusing to forcefully impose the Church union across the whole empire. To lthe Romans, the idea of returning to a union with the "Latins" on their terms was an insult.

Though assuming Papal and Byzantine relations normalize over a later period, do you think it possible that the schism be resolved through a more negotiated settlement along the lines of the pre 1054 status quo?

In my opinion, it could happen during the time of Michael, when there were infighting for the throne in Bulgaria from 1277 to 1280.

 

[Evil Crusader]

Is that really a wise decision for Byzantium though? It deeply divided the population with prominent members of the Palaiologian family siding against it such as Michael's sister. Michael VIII himself wasn't really even all for it, as he later got excommunicated for refusing to forcefully impose the Church union across the whole empire. To lthe Romans, the idea of returning to a union with the "Latins" on their terms was an insult.

Though assuming Papal and Byzantine relations normalize over a later period, do you think it possible that the schism be resolved through a more negotiated settlement along the lines of the pre 1054 status quo?

Yeah, something like that would be best case for Byzantium. The problem is, the alternative doesn't quite exist; or rather, it means eternal paranoia of a Western attack, and that has its own inbuilt cost.

 

[Lascaris]

Back in 1258 Ioannis Lascaris is married to Eirene Palaiologina Michael's eldest daughter and kept as coemperor. Michael avoids the Arsenite schism and the pro-Lascarid revolts in Asia Minor leading to a stronger internal position and a better situation in Asia Minor as the defense of the region has not been denuded by the revolts and their suppression.

Then come 1282 Ioannis IV beats Andronicos in the struggle after the death of Michael and you avoid the half century disaster he represented.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Then come 1282 Ioannis IV beats Andronicos in the struggle after the death of Michael and you avoid the half century disaster he represented.

Michael VIII: Son you know since there's now two Imperial dynasties on the throne, only one family can truly rule in Constantinople.
Andronikos II: Just like the Macedonians and the Lekapanoi huh?
Michael VIII: Indeed. And now you'll be in heavy competition with your uncle by marriage. And in a power struggle like that, would you lose?
Andronikos II: Nah I'd win

Ngl I feel like the competition if anything would motivate Andronikos to actually try and learn in his youth out of sheer self interest. The dude wasn't dumb and he had an overall good senses of what to do in terms of self-preservation.

Michael avoids the Arsenite schism and the pro-Lascarid revolts in Asia Minor leading to a stronger internal position and a better situation in Asia Minor as the defense of the region has not been denuded by the revolts and their suppression

Alternatively Michael VIII could spend a lot of time focused on dealing with palace intrigues as well. And with the issue of the Church Union, that could strengthen the Laskarids. Then again Michael could probably have him kept away from the reigns of power and would probably drill it into Andronikos' head that if he doesn't do well, he will die.

In my opinion, it could happen during the time of Michael, when there were infighting for the throne in Bulgaria from 1277 to 1280.

Though would he really have the means to truly reconquer it? He kept trying to subjugate it via proxy tying them to him through marriage.

 

[Lascaris]

Michael VIII: Son you know since there's now two Imperial dynasties on the throne, only one family can truly rule in Constantinople.
Andronikos II: Just like the Macedonians and the Lekapanoi huh?
Michael VIII: Indeed. And now you'll be in heavy competition with your uncle by marriage.

Brother it law to get technical, he's married to Andronikos elder sister. So either way Michael's grandson will be next one getting the purple.

And in a power struggle like that, would you lose?
Andronikos II: Nah I'd win

Ngl I feel like the competition if anything would motivate Andronikos to actually try and learn in his youth out of sheer self interest. The dude wasn't dumb and he had an overall good senses of what to do in terms of self-preservation.

Learning was never Andronikos problem. That he was best suited as a theologian in a university was.

Alternatively Michael VIII could spend a lot of time focused on dealing with palace intrigues as well. And with the issue of the Church Union, that could strengthen the Laskarids. Then again Michael could probably have him kept away from the reigns of power and would probably drill it into Andronikos' head that if he doesn't do well, he will die.

Nothing different from OTL there given the conspiracies he had to deal with particularly after the union of Lyon.