Isaac's Empire 2.0

[Utgard96]

Since everyone else is projecting their fantasies on this timeline, I'd like to project my own. Could Islam do better in this timeline? Pretty please? Seeing the Middle East covered in Roman purple is depressing.

This has no chance of succeeding; one of the 'backbones' of the TL is the reconquest of the Levant and Mesopotamia by the Romans.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

 

[Makemakean]

This little Scandinavian demands that more attention be given to the Holy German conquest of Scandinavia and its fight for independence!

By the way, would you be content with allowing me to use some of the characters from Isaac's Empire in my own timeline? Basically, they would be parallel versions of, for example, Pope Samuel, who may end up living completely different lives in the other timeline.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

This little Scandinavian demands that more attention be given to the Holy German conquest of Scandinavia and its fight for independence!

Don't worry, I'll be giving it a lot more detail, especially as I'll have the help of our resident Swede Ares96 on the matter. The conquest will be a lot slower and bloodier this time round- and for all that, the unexpected triumph of the Scandinavians in Vinland will be all the brighter.

By the way, would you be content with allowing me to use some of the characters from Isaac's Empire in my own timeline? Basically, they would be parallel versions of, for example, Pope Samuel, who may end up living completely different lives in the other timeline.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be that boring guy who says no, here. I'm happy to let some elements of my TL get shared out, but actually taking characters is, I'm afraid, a step too far. Very sorry to let you down there, my friend. I hope that won't put you off reading and perhaps contributing to IE 2.0, though!

 

[Elfwine]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be that boring guy who says no, here. I'm happy to let some elements of my TL get shared out, but actually taking characters is, I'm afraid, a step too far. Very sorry to let you down there, my friend. I hope that won't put you off reading and perhaps contributing to IE 2.0, though!

At what point, out of curiosity, do they start being "your characters"? As in, Isaac I is obviously historical, but is John II (I'm presuming Alexius still names his firstborn after his - the son's - grandfather)?

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

At what point, out of curiosity, do they start being "your characters"? As in, Isaac I is obviously historical, but is John II (I'm presuming Alexius still names his firstborn after his - the son's - grandfather)?

In this version, Alexios Komnenos will be the last OTL Byzantine Emperor. There'll be a Manuel Komnenos, but he won't be Alexios' grandson. And Alexios' son won't be a John- I think he'll probably be called Isaac, after the founder of the dynasty. So, yes, you'll see when they start to become "my" characters. Earlier than before, basically!

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

Welcome aboard, RB. Now, I know eleventh century Byzantium really isn't your period, so, was all of this easy to understand for a relative beginner such as yourself? Are there any more terms you think I could explain better.



Yep, see below. I'll be using the Anno Domini calendar generally, though, for reasons of simplicity. I don't want to put off casual readers by forcing them to wade through Annus Mundi dates.



Partly it's simple loyalty to a reigning Emperor- if every general revolted every time he won a battle, the Empire wouldn't get anywhere, would it? Furthermore, Diogenēs is something of a "fish out of water" as an Anatolian landowner commanding the Western armies. He can't really rely on their unquestioned support, so the chances of a revolt from him are slim.


I'm not sure I agree with the point about the Empire's downfall being down to Psellos' antics. He might have aggravated things, but he probably had the capacity to greatly improve things, too, which is the reason he'll be back in the next chapter. The title he held under Isaac Komnenos was "President of the Senate"- I can't find the original Greek version of that title, though.


Ignatios is writing his Chronicle in about the 1100, under Isaac's successor. By this point, Phaselis has, yes, shrunk to its very core as a town, but is also home to a fortified set of monasteries, dependent upon nearby Attaleia.



Not at all. There are obviously no concepts of Laffer curves or anything in eleventh century Byzantium- indeed, economic diversification is actively thought by conservative minded Emperors to be a bad thing, as it means peasants will start doing other things than being farmers dependent on the state for their wealth.

Taxation is kept low for a much more mundane reason: high taxes mean revolts against Emperors. The impact of lower taxes, though, is beginning to tell by the early 1060s- the towns that shrank back to being a mere fortress core in the seventh century are now rapidly expanding back out again, and the traditional economy of villages and smallholders is rapidly being swept away as urban culture begins to return to Anatolia.



Thanks for your thoughts. I think we should all be allowed a cheeky plug of our TLs here and there.



Indeed! Still several hundred thousand more thread views to go...



It certainly is!



Thank you very much. I presume everything was nice and clear for you too, then?



1. Russia won't play a dramatically different role in v2.0 to that that it did in v1.0, though I don't have any REALLY firm ideas, yet. I can definitely say that the major developments in Russian history in 1.0, like the Union of Novgorod and Kiev in the late 1360s, and the development of Neo-Spartanism in the 1740s will still happen here.

2. If those Mongol ideas work and can do so in a way that's reasonably consistent with the rest of the TL carrying on, then, yes, I'll consider it. Please PM me in more detail nearer the time.

3. Not uber-dark, this isn't going to be apocalyptic. It's just going to be "grittier", rather than darker.



You sure can! Welcome aboard.



Keroularios' death is actually OTL. I changed it in 1.0 so Isaac wouldn't have the problem of Keroularios being a martyr, but hey, problems make a TL more interesting!



This.



Thanks for the links, I will take a look at them!

Basilieus, I've sent you the PM on the ideas that I have. In case you may not be able to take it, I need your advice on how to make that idea plausible.

 

[Elfwine]

In this version, Alexios Komnenos will be the last OTL Byzantine Emperor. There'll be a Manuel Komnenos, but he won't be Alexios' grandson. And Alexios' son won't be a John- I think he'll probably be called Isaac, after the founder of the dynasty. So, yes, you'll see when they start to become "my" characters. Earlier than before, basically!

Sounds good.

Looking forward to who this Manuel will be. That could be...interesting.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

Whatever you feel you can offer, please PM me.

I will... And if you need any help with the Church i ll be happy to help you... My thesis was about the Church in Roman/Byzantine Empire...

 

[ByzantineCaesar]

In this version, Alexios Komnenos will be the last OTL Byzantine Emperor. There'll be a Manuel Komnenos, but he won't be Alexios' grandson. And Alexios' son won't be a John- I think he'll probably be called Isaac, after the founder of the dynasty. So, yes, you'll see when they start to become "my" characters. Earlier than before, basically!

Oh dear! No Manuel Komnenos the Great?! Now I'm worried

 

[Makemakean]

Don't worry, I'll be giving it a lot more detail, especially as I'll have the help of our resident Swede Ares96 on the matter. The conquest will be a lot slower and bloodier this time round- and for all that, the unexpected triumph of the Scandinavians in Vinland will be all the brighter.

This change is most appreciated. I always found Germany's rapid conquest of Scandinavia somewhat bothering. Surely it should have taken longer? Surely it should have been given more attention? But then again, how could a newbie like me ever question the great Basileus Giorgios?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be that boring guy who says no, here. I'm happy to let some elements of my TL get shared out, but actually taking characters is, I'm afraid, a step too far.

Darn.

Oh, well...

Very sorry to let you down there, my friend. I hope that won't put you off reading and perhaps contributing to IE 2.0, though!

You'd actually be interested in some contributions? I'd be more than happy! Scania is where I'm from, so I'd gladly help you with illustrating the Holy German armada entering the Scandinavian peninsula and taking the Scanian fortresses.

 

[Megas Dux ton Kypraion]

Partly it's simple loyalty to a reigning Emperor- if every general revolted every time he won a battle, the Empire wouldn't get anywhere, would it? Furthermore, Diogenēs is something of a "fish out of water" as an Anatolian landowner commanding the Western armies. He can't really rely on their unquestioned support, so the chances of a revolt from him are slim.

Ok, that works.

I'm not sure I agree with the point about the Empire's downfall being down to Psellos' antics. He might have aggravated things, but he probably had the capacity to greatly improve things, too, which is the reason he'll be back in the next chapter. The title he held under Isaac Komnenos was "President of the Senate"- I can't find the original Greek version of that title, though.

Didn't say he brought the Empire down, but did say he meddled and probably made things worse - you are splitting hairs methinks!

The President of the Senate was the Proedros.

Ignatios is writing his Chronicle in about the 1100, under Isaac's successor. By this point, Phaselis has, yes, shrunk to its very core as a town, but is also home to a fortified set of monasteries, dependent upon nearby Attaleia.

Sounds about right.

Not at all. There are obviously no concepts of Laffer curves or anything in eleventh century Byzantium- indeed, economic diversification is actively thought by conservative minded Emperors to be a bad thing, as it means peasants will start doing other things than being farmers dependent on the state for their wealth.

Good, good! Just ensuring we are talking about a medieval economy here...

Taxation is kept low for a much more mundane reason: high taxes mean revolts against Emperors. The impact of lower taxes, though, is beginning to tell by the early 1060s- the towns that shrank back to being a mere fortress core in the seventh century are now rapidly expanding back out again, and the traditional economy of villages and smallholders is rapidly being swept away as urban culture begins to return to Anatolia.

So the point about taxation, as another poster commented, is that it is relatively low.

The Comenenian period IOTL, as you know, was a period of rapid economic expansion with the features you describe above. It will be interesting to see how Isaac's Empire deals with the rising power of the West - not just Normans in the toe of Italy, or Venetians wanting a slice of Byzantine wealth, but Popes in Rome getting ideas above their station...

This change is most appreciated. I always found Germany's rapid conquest of Scandinavia somewhat bothering. Surely it should have taken longer? Surely it should have been given more attention? But then again, how could a newbie like me ever question the great Basileus Giorgios?

I've written the Anonymous Chronicle, which covers the history of Isaac's Empire Vinland and Scandinavia over on CoJ. Two relevant entries which may interest you are the 1365-69 period and the 1370-75 period.

I intend to write more Vinland History, as and when we roll around to the 14th century; any new collaborators would be welcome.

You'd actually be interested in some contributions? I'd be more than happy! Scania is where I'm from, so I'd gladly help you with illustrating the Holy German armada entering the Scandinavian peninsula and taking the Scanian fortresses.

Have a look at the above links for starters, and maybe some of the rest of the CoJ material, and PM me and BG - or just post thoughts on this thread.

This little Scandinavian demands that more attention be given to the Holy German conquest of Scandinavia and its fight for independence!

I for one would be really happy for someone else to tell the detailed story of the Conquest. But I leave that to you and BG. And we are getting a little ahead of ourselves here ... (but it's good to plan!)

 

[Utgard96]

This change is most appreciated. I always found Germany's rapid conquest of Scandinavia somewhat bothering. Surely it should have taken longer? Surely it should have been given more attention? But then again, how could a newbie like me ever question the great Basileus Giorgios?

I agree fully with this gentleman (except the last part; from my experience, BG tends to welcome advice from newcomers unless they just troll).

You'd actually be interested in some contributions? I'd be more than happy! Scania is where I'm from, so I'd gladly help you with illustrating the Holy German armada entering the Scandinavian peninsula and taking the Scanian fortresses.

You're Scanian? I live in Blekinge, but a fourth of my family is from Scania. Maybe we could do a collaboration on TTL's Swedish history?

 

[Pachac]

Since everyone else is projecting their fantasies on this timeline, I'd like to project my own. Could Islam do better in this timeline? Pretty please? Seeing the Middle East covered in Roman purple is depressing.

I demand that the Qaramita never exist, thereby allowing the Fatimids to conquer Northern Syria and defeat the dastardly Romans!

 

[Elfwine]

I demand that the Qaramita never exist, thereby allowing the Fatimids to conquer Northern Syria and defeat the dastardly Romans!

Who were the Qaramita?

And hopefully at least give a better fight.

On that note, this isn't a demand so much as a request: If things are going screwy in England, can you cover how that happened better?

Somehow what happened in version 1 seems...lacking. Interesting, but lacking.

 

[CobiWann]

Subscribed. Getting in on the ground flood for this one.

 

[Magnum]

I must say, I enjoyed the original TL a lot and feel confident that version 2.0 will be even better. That said, the one thing I disliked about the original IE was what happened north of the Danube (I know, I know, it's not ethical to be biased, but hey, we all have our weaknesses...).

I mean, the lands of what is now Romania (were a plurality the population were orthodox proto-Romanians) were consistently ruled by Volhynia in the original TL, who I think was just a space-filling empire. In that particular time period, it was kind of difficult for states to establish effective control over the area over a prolonged period of time (see Battle of Posada, the foundation of Moldova etc)

Had the byzantines been so much stronger, they would have tried to exert at least some influence over this area, like they did OTL (or even expand into the area outright).

For instance:

Menumorut, a local warlord at the time of Transylvania's conquest by Hungarians (9th-10th century) claimed he was a vassal of the Emperor of Constantinople

When Andronicus Comnenus fled north in 1164, he was captured by Vlahs (Romanians) who helped him, showing that Constantinople had some political influence over the area.

An influence which is most solidly proven by the fact that romanian orthodox churches continued to send money to Constantinople even after any sort of military influence it could have had over the area was gone, in fact, even after it was conquered by the Turks, or by the fact that orthodoxy survived (and even thrived).

So, with that little rant aside, this would be my special request for this, (in my view) one of this forums most special timelines:

Pls have Constantinople exert power and influence north of the Danube (once it's within their capabilities and interests of course) and don't leave the place to space-filling empires.

 

[Makemakean]

You're Scanian? I live in Blekinge, but a fourth of my family is from Scania. Maybe we could do a collaboration on TTL's Swedish history?

Trevligt att ha någon svensk på forumet som snackar språket på ett ordentligt sätt! Allt norr om Småland är ju, som vi alla vet, Norrland!

But back to the tongue other people on the forum can understand, I'd be happy to cooperate with you on the Isaac's Empire-timeline. Additionally, you might wish to help me with my own Vinlandic timeline at some point in the distant future? I intend to give Scandinavia far more attention than it probably deserves.

 

[Utgard96]

Trevligt att ha någon svensk på forumet som snackar språket på ett ordentligt sätt! Allt norr om Småland är ju, som vi alla vet, Norrland!

Just det!

But back to the tongue other people on the forum can understand, I'd be happy to cooperate with you on the Isaac's Empire-timeline. Additionally, you might wish to help me with my own Vinlandic timeline at some point in the distant future? I intend to give Scandinavia far more attention than it probably deserves.

I'll PM you with some ideas of mine. As for your TL, I'm going to read it as soon as the map is done.

 

[Pachac]

Who were the Qaramita?

And hopefully at least give a better fight.

The Qaramita were a Shia sect which often challenged the Isma'ilis in Northern Syria. They believed that the rightful Imam was Qarmat, and that Ismail had died. The Isma'ilis believe he hadn't died, IIRC.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

I agree fully with this gentleman (except the last part; from my experience, BG tends to welcome advice from newcomers unless they just troll).

Hey, we were all n00bs once. I'm very happy to accept sensible advice and thoughts from people who know more than I do. As long as that advice is properly spelled and grammatically correct, that is.

I demand that the Qaramita never exist, thereby allowing the Fatimids to conquer Northern Syria and defeat the dastardly Romans!

Don't forget, the Egyptians were quite capable of giving the Romans a bloody nose in 1.0, and that won't be changing here. As in 1.0, Roman domination will only be able to be established when the Mongols have thoroughly shattered Egyptian organisation and resistance.

On that note, this isn't a demand so much as a request: If things are going screwy in England, can you cover how that happened better?

I'll see what I can do. The breakup, and reunification, of Britain, is an interesting part of the TL that Megas and I have had some thoughts on in the past, and will no doubt expand on here.

Subscribed. Getting in on the ground flood for this one.

Welcome aboard.

I must say, I enjoyed the original TL a lot and feel confident that version 2.0 will be even better. That said, the one thing I disliked about the original IE was what happened north of the Danube (I know, I know, it's not ethical to be biased, but hey, we all have our weaknesses...).

I mean, the lands of what is now Romania (were a plurality the population were orthodox proto-Romanians) were consistently ruled by Volhynia in the original TL, who I think was just a space-filling empire. In that particular time period, it was kind of difficult for states to establish effective control over the area over a prolonged period of time (see Battle of Posada, the foundation of Moldova etc)

Had the byzantines been so much stronger, they would have tried to exert at least some influence over this area, like they did OTL (or even expand into the area outright).

For instance:

Menumorut, a local warlord at the time of Transylvania's conquest by Hungarians (9th-10th century) claimed he was a vassal of the Emperor of Constantinople

When Andronicus Comnenus fled north in 1164, he was captured by Vlahs (Romanians) who helped him, showing that Constantinople had some political influence over the area.

An influence which is most solidly proven by the fact that romanian orthodox churches continued to send money to Constantinople even after any sort of military influence it could have had over the area was gone, in fact, even after it was conquered by the Turks, or by the fact that orthodoxy survived (and even thrived).

So, with that little rant aside, this would be my special request for this, (in my view) one of this forums most special timelines:

Pls have Constantinople exert power and influence north of the Danube (once it's within their capabilities and interests of course) and don't leave the place to space-filling empires.

You're right that Galicia in 1.0 was a space filling empire, but I'm not going to change the shape of the country. What will change is the detail I'll put into explaining it's rise, so by the end of it, it won't be a space filling empire, but a properly thought out and developed state, that exists within the Roman sphere of influence.

The Empire won't expand north of the Danube though, because I feel that makes its borders look ugly, and we wouldn't be wanting that, now would we?