He is (nothing has changed in Western Europe yet), and yes, Louis is three as of the current year.
Are you looking at Philip, personally, being less successful, or a weaker France?
The Eagle of the Bosporus
- Thread starter Elfwine
- Start date
He is (nothing has changed in Western Europe yet), and yes, Louis is three as of the current year.
Are you looking at Philip, personally, being less successful, or a weaker France?
I was looking more toward the latter really; and since Phillip did quite a good job at expanding royal control and influence in France; as well as (I may be wrong here, but I think I'm on the right track) doing something to reform France's economy or government, having him meet an earlier end or being generally less successful would go a ways to weaken France, at least in the short term.
The two (strengthening royal power and government reform) go together in this period, at least in my reading.
Should be interesting to see how a weaker France does if he gets hit by something - a stray arrow, perhaps.
I would like to ask what to what extent is the Emperor effected by his son's death? You said that "the news of his son's death had hit him hard". Would this tragedy deflate the Emperor, or motivate him more? Unless of course, you're planning on filling us in on this at a later point in time; if so I'll wait for it.
In the long run, it might see him more motivated.
In the short run, he's going to be shaken up for the usual fatherly reasons.
Not much more to it than that, really.
Nice to see this tl is back elfwine. Really interesting and realistic
Damm Fredrick lives. I doubt the muslims can deal with a 100k man army.
Damm Fredrick lives. I doubt the muslims can deal with a 100k man army.
Good update, and a quite surprising one I must admit.
BTW, since Béla is going to be more successful here, maybe he claims the title of Emperor? After all, he is already Caesar (or Kaisar).
On other note: I would hate to see Dandolo as the Doge of Venice
I've just come up with something: why don't marry Béla's daughter Margaret to Alexios II? IOTL, she was Empress Consort of Isaac II. Of course there could be some genetic problems with the Porphyrogennitos, since Margaret's mother is Agnes of Antioch, who in turn is half-sister of Empress Mother Maria, but it's implausible.
BTW, since Béla is going to be more successful here, maybe he claims the title of Emperor? After all, he is already Caesar (or Kaisar).
On other note: I would hate to see Dandolo as the Doge of Venice
Or another prospect for a weaker France is that Richard returns safely to London rather than being held hostage in Austria for several years. Or simply doesn't get himself killed so stupidly. A powerful Lionheart will make a much tougher opponent for Philip than a weaker John constrained by internal unrest.
Steve
Good update, and a quite surprising one I must admit.
I've just come up with something: why don't marry Béla's daughter Margaret to Alexios II? IOTL, she was Empress Consort of Isaac II. Of course there could be some genetic problems with the Porphyrogennitos, since Margaret's mother is Agnes of Antioch, who in turn is half-sister of Empress Mother Maria, but it's implausible.
BTW, since Béla is going to be more successful here, maybe he claims the title of Emperor? After all, he is already Caesar (or Kaisar).
On other note: I would hate to see Dandolo as the Doge of Venice
Hm, there's a thought. Alexius is already married to Agnes of France, but if not Alexius, someone else is possible.
When was Margaret born?
And no emperorship for Bela. Someone else will have to pursue that TL (which would be interesting).
Good to know.
Wonder if it would be too far fetched for her to marry Frederick (Henry's son - born 1194).
Either as her first or second husband.
Faeelin
Banned
On the other hand, he did bankrupt the nation to go to the Holy Land, got ransomed on the way back, and then get killed besieging a castle.
Just saying...
Faeelin
I fully admit it may well not be the better for England, or the rest of the Avegin [sp?] empire but it could well seriously crimp France's growth in central power under Philip.
Steve
I'm going with the historians who think 100,000 men (which is the traditional number given) is too many. So I'm going with Barbarossa actually having about 30,000 men. Probably closer to 20,000 at this point in the campaign.
That clear it up?
To all readers: I know I owe a post on Alexius's response to things, but I've been lazy and haven't really come up with anything interesting. So I may just move on to someone else - we all know what he's going to do in this situation, I think.
Oh really yeah i too didnt believe the 100k point but it is what I have read and I think it is wrong. Your estimate is much better and far more realistic.
By the way an alliance beetween Fredrick and Alexius I have to agree with Impi. I mean otl according to Ostrogorsky the HRE and The Rhoman empire focused on outmaneuvering each other in places like Italy and the balkans. Tensions were not really you know great beetween the two powers. SO this alliance is a bit much. A free grant of passage to the holy land perfectly reasonable. Full blown military alliance... the Ego of Fredrick would not allow it nor was it really feaseable during this time. After all right now Fredrick must fear Roman strenght due to Manuel controlling Hungary(as his vassal) Croatia and Serbia. So i see Fredrick cautious of the Byzantines rather than ally with them.
I actually may have mixed up the whole thing. Frederick had in fact concluded an alliance with Sicily and had tenuous relations with the Byzantine emperor. It was only the weakness of the Emperor himself after the disaster of Myriokephalon that let him pass. I mixed it up with the Second crusade. I can certainly see Alexius concluding some sort of agreement with Frederick. He certainly wanted to keep the brilliant balance of power his Father had set up in the crusader states which essentially kept Nur ad-din at bay and kept the Byzantine presence in Antioch ever-ready. The collapse of this balance would obviously have negative effects on the prestige of Alexius, but I'm sure he would survive. He may however re-enforce the Byzantine claim to Antioch after it had been seized in 1156. His alliance would Frederick would be a temporary one, at best; He most certainly does not want Frederick being too powerful.
In any case, Frederick really isn't going to like Antioch being Byzantine. There will most likely be clashes, and when Frederick goes to siege Latakia, that strip of land which cut off Tripoli from Antioch in the aftermath of the third crusade, will be a point of contention.
In any case, Frederick really isn't going to like Antioch being Byzantine. There will most likely be clashes, and when Frederick goes to siege Latakia, that strip of land which cut off Tripoli from Antioch in the aftermath of the third crusade, will be a point of contention.
Last edited:
Neither are committed to it any further than the crusade itself, but Frederick is concerned with Jerusalem and the fact a hostile Alexius is a serious problem he doesn't need, and Alexius doesn't want to spend a hyperpyron he doesn't have to on fighting anyone until he has the state's administration in order. The two do have a reason to profess a temporary alliance to advance both their goals (the Seljuks are in Frederick's way anyway, so encouraging him to break a few Turkish heads isn't difficult).
As for Hungary: Hungary is independent, I need to post the map of the Byzantines and their neighbors for this timeline - basically the Byzantines control what this map shows plus Serbia: http://historymedren.about.com/library/atlas/blatmapeurse1180.htm
And what the Seljuks don't know about the tensions they can't use to attempt to cause trouble.
That's my reasoning, more or less. But see below for more.
ImmortalImpi said:
Pretty much.
The current status of Antioch is "Somewhere between a protectorate and part of the empire." Accordingly, the map-to-come for 1183 shows it in Roman colors. In 1190..."It barely acknowledges Alexius (the mountains are high and the emperor is far away), and Alexius has been too busy in the last seven years to address it properly." So its independent for the crusade's purposes (and Alexius isn't sending enough troops as to help/watch Frederick to change that - dealing with Antioch will come after more important matters are squared away).
I'm going to revise the posts on Frederick's march anyway, but I'm going to go over this more to cover how problematic the situation is - two not-very-trusting men dealing with a rival is rather complicated even with Alexius following his great-grandfather's example and Frederick's eyes being on Jerusalem first and foremost.
After all, Frederick would (literally) kill for the chance to weaken the Byzantines if a reasonable opportunity arises (that doesn't interfere with the crusade), and Alexius not giving him one is an important reason in how the Byzantines emerge from the first two decades of Alexius's rule (1183-1203) stronger than OTL and able to deal with the problems of the future.
Hope this clears stuff up.