• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
On the other hand, the extended trade network would have help the western provinces, and if the dynastoi are committed to rebuilding Western Europe with roads and other sorts of infrastructure, Western Europe and North Africa would be much better off in our timeline. Although I do agree that France might be less prosperous as a result of the recent wars.
 
On the other hand, the extended trade network would have help the western provinces, and if the dynastoi are committed to rebuilding Western Europe with roads and other sorts of infrastructure, Western Europe and North Africa would be much better off in our timeline. Although I do agree that France might be less prosperous as a result of the recent wars.

Rebuild western Europe? In what way exactly? Western Europe was a thriving place in the 12th century, despite feudalism and despite NOT being ruled by the oh-so-awesome "Romans" (who are actually Greeks, not from Rome, not affiliated with the Roman church, and at best distantly related to the empire whose name they claim.)

I fail to see what exactly the Byzantine invasions brought to Europe, that was not already there. Besides some scholarly traditions that got lost in the west.

In what way exactly was the Byzantine empire of the 12th century "ahead" or better adapted to its times than the feudal kingdoms of western Europe? Oh, right, it was more urban. In the sense that it had exactly one big city which other countries could not rival. However all other cities of the Empire were minor urbanities, not any different from cities in Italy, southern France, or Spain. Cordoba alone was several times larger than Thessaloniki and the other cities of the empire put together.

Really I mean where does this irrational fanboyism of the Byzantine empire come from? It's true that it used to be a beacon of civilization, back in the dark ages, but as of the 13th century, those dark ages are long gone. The Greeks don't own any patents on civilization, urbanity, modern governance or (god forbid) realpolitik.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong: even in the times of the (very late) Republic, Rome was culturally and language-wise splitten in two: the Latin west and the Hellenic east. And correct me again, but didn't the eastern part soon (400 A.D.+) adopt some "typically eastern" traditions that originally came from the Achaemenid (Ancient Persian) Empire?

The "Western tradition" was, to a certain extent, upheld by the Frankish Empire and the Roman Catholic Church, - at least IMHO. Later Friedrich II (and maybe his father Henrich VI too) and Inocens III were the closest to what could be called "Roman tradition". Still later, one could (with some good-will) see the Habsburg (especially Charles V) as kinda heirs to that tradition.

Yours,
AdL

... and now back to the AAR! I'm curious how Andronikos' plan will unfold ...
 
Really I mean where does this irrational fanboyism of the Byzantine empire come from? It's true that it used to be a beacon of civilization, back in the dark ages, but as of the 13th century, those dark ages are long gone. The Greeks don't own any patents on civilization, urbanity, modern governance or (god forbid) realpolitik.


I'm not denying that the Byzantine Empire in the 13th century was a shadow of itself, especially after the sack of Constaninople, nor do I believe that only the Byzantines are the only one that can rebuild Europe. All I am saying is that a rich and prosperous Byzantine in this timeline can and most likely did help to rebuild Western Europe.

How does this make me a fanboy?

Can Western Europe develop on its own without the help of the Byzantines? Yes, I believe so, given that this has happened in our own history. However, given that the Byzantine empire in this scenario have more than enough skilled workers to build things like aqueducts and roads, I don't know why is it so hard to image that the Byzantines could contribute greatly to Western Europe.
 
Last edited:
I'm not denying that the Byzantine Empire in the 13th century was a shadow of itself, especially after the sack of Constaninople, nor do I believe that only the Byzantines are the only one that can rebuild Europe. All I am saying is that a rich and prosperous Byzantine in this timeline can and most likely did help to rebuild Western Europe.

How does this make me a fanboy?

Can Western Europe develop on its own without the help of the Byzantines? Yes, I believe so, given that this has happened in our own history. However, given that the Byzantine empire in this scenario have more than enough skilled workers to build things like aqueducts and roads, I don't know why is it so hard to image that the Byzantines could contribute greatly to Western Europe.
You still insist that western Europe needed to be "rebuilt".

In what sense exactly? :) That was my main question in the previous post.

What I'm also saying, is, it was not actually such an uber empire. It was certainly better organized than the feudal kingdoms (in the 11th century), and had more gold floating around both in the treasuries accumulated over centuries as well as in currency. Also the libraries of Constantinople were probably incomparable with any other library in Christian Europe. However in economic terms, i.e. agricultural surpluses, taxable GDP, or material wealth of the ordinary people, is was not much better than any other place in Europe. Libraries do not feed soldiers, and treasures can only be turned into money once, then they're gone.

Aqaeducts and roads are nice... but as in the west, the Byzantines were AFAIK not so much into building new stuff any more. What people talk of as "Roman roads" were constructed centuries before the medieval Byzantine dynasties.

People in western Europe also needed no help in building aqaeducts, they had enough of the old ruins standing around to know how those things were constructed. But they did not feel they needed them. Cologne used to have a big aqaeduct under the Romans, back in the 1st-4th century AD, but in the middle ages when the city grew again, the city fathers did not feel the need to rebuild them. In fact much of the old Roman stuff turned out not to be so necessary for people accustomed to life in northern climates. The Byzantines could teach them a lesson in hygiene, but what does that have to do with "rebuilding" Europe?
 
You still insist that western Europe needed to be "rebuilt".

In what sense exactly? :) That was my main question in the previous post.

What I'm also saying, is, it was not actually such an uber empire. It was certainly better organized than the feudal kingdoms (in the 11th century), and had more gold floating around both in the treasuries accumulated over centuries as well as in currency. Also the libraries of Constantinople were probably incomparable with any other library in Christian Europe. However in economic terms, i.e. agricultural surpluses, taxable GDP, or material wealth of the ordinary people, is was not much better than any other place in Europe. Libraries do not feed soldiers, and treasures can only be turned into money once, then they're gone.

Aqaeducts and roads are nice... but as in the west, the Byzantines were AFAIK not so much into building new stuff any more. What people talk of as "Roman roads" were constructed centuries before the medieval Byzantine dynasties.

People in western Europe also needed no help in building aqaeducts, they had enough of the old ruins standing around to know how those things were constructed. But they did not feel they needed them. Cologne used to have a big aqaeduct under the Romans, back in the 1st-4th century AD, but in the middle ages when the city grew again, the city fathers did not feel the need to rebuild them. In fact much of the old Roman stuff turned out not to be so necessary for people accustomed to life in northern climates. The Byzantines could teach them a lesson in hygiene, but what does that have to do with "rebuilding" Europe?

In Rome AArison's time line the Byzantine's were extremly rich and proubly built roads, churchs, etc., etc. which undoubtly speeded up learning, and encourged trade and commerce. So almost exactly like the Renissance but with a nation spanding central goverment to finance, and support it who also were the ones who introduced it. The Renissance was born out of rich Italian's curiosity at the wonders of Rome. It inflounced architecture, lititure, science, technology, and cultural improvment. With a strong central gov. to introduce, spread, and nurture this movement it would have been stronger more defined and faster. Who can deny the Renissance had a lasting effect/improvement on Westren European Life.

Edit: I was reading the "History of the White Eagle", and I was wondering if you've ever thought of posting the Dynastic Glory of Rome ARRsion. That would be really cool.
 
Last edited:
However I think an Empire primarily centered around the East would dedicate their efforts to building projects within their traditional "Core territories", and as such not pay very much attention to the Western Provinces. In reality the Empire at this time probably has made Western Europe such as Spain wealthy, but I feel alot of that wealth is ending up in the Imperial Coffers in Constantinople instead of the cities of the West.
 
You still insist that western Europe needed to be "rebuilt".

In what sense exactly? :) That was my main question in the previous post.

What I'm also saying, is, it was not actually such an uber empire. It was certainly better organized than the feudal kingdoms (in the 11th century), and had more gold floating around both in the treasuries accumulated over centuries as well as in currency. Also the libraries of Constantinople were probably incomparable with any other library in Christian Europe. However in economic terms, i.e. agricultural surpluses, taxable GDP, or material wealth of the ordinary people, is was not much better than any other place in Europe. Libraries do not feed soldiers, and treasures can only be turned into money once, then they're gone.

Aqaeducts and roads are nice... but as in the west, the Byzantines were AFAIK not so much into building new stuff any more. What people talk of as "Roman roads" were constructed centuries before the medieval Byzantine dynasties.

People in western Europe also needed no help in building aqaeducts, they had enough of the old ruins standing around to know how those things were constructed. But they did not feel they needed them. Cologne used to have a big aqaeduct under the Romans, back in the 1st-4th century AD, but in the middle ages when the city grew again, the city fathers did not feel the need to rebuild them. In fact much of the old Roman stuff turned out not to be so necessary for people accustomed to life in northern climates. The Byzantines could teach them a lesson in hygiene, but what does that have to do with "rebuilding" Europe?

I thought that the reason why the Byzantines didn't build the roads and all the aqueducts was due to its relatively poor financial status? Even Constantinople became a shadow of itself before the Turks took over in the 15th century. If the Byzantines are stable and rich enough, I don't see why they won't attempt on a massive building spree all over Europe.

Especially when there are a fair number of Emperors that openly declared their desire to conquer Rome and rebuild the old Roman Empire.

And I find it weird that you believe that aqaeducts would not help a city to become more prosperous. Sure, a city can expand without an aquaeduct, but I think it is reasonable that an aquaeduct would still be able to contribute to the development of the city.



However I think an Empire primarily centered around the East would dedicate their efforts to building projects within their traditional "Core territories", and as such not pay very much attention to the Western Provinces. In reality the Empire at this time probably has made Western Europe such as Spain wealthy, but I feel alot of that wealth is ending up in the Imperial Coffers in Constantinople instead of the cities of the West.


Sure, the Emperor may not bother to invest the money in the Imperial treasury into the western provinces, but I think there are a number of rich dynastoi who are willingly to improve their reputation by glorifying the cities they lived in. Together with the fact that those aristocrats would have a rather sizable standing army to help them in the construction effort, I don't see any reason why there won't be a number of massive building projects in the West.
 
I thought that the reason why the Byzantines didn't build the roads and all the aqueducts was due to its relatively poor financial status? Even Constantinople became a shadow of itself before the Turks took over in the 15th century. If the Byzantines are stable and rich enough, I don't see why they won't attempt on a massive building spree all over Europe.

Especially when there are a fair number of Emperors that openly declared their desire to conquer Rome and rebuild the old Roman Empire.

And I find it weird that you believe that aqaeducts would not help a city to become more prosperous. Sure, a city can expand without an aquaeduct, but I think it is reasonable that an aquaeduct would still be able to contribute to the development of the city.

Sure, the Emperor may not bother to invest the money in the Imperial treasury into the western provinces, but I think there are a number of rich dynastoi who are willingly to improve their reputation by glorifying the cities they lived in. Together with the fact that those aristocrats would have a rather sizable standing army to help them in the construction effort, I don't see any reason why there won't be a number of massive building projects in the West.
But again... how are these dynatoi any different from the dukes and kings who ruled Europe in real history? Many of whom were (by the time of the 13th century) as literate, educated and economically savvy as the Byzantines. Peter III of Aragon, ever heard of him? Alfonso X. of Castile?

"Massive building spree" is a very good description of what western Europe went through in the 13th and later centuries, without any Byzantine influence. Gothic style architecture? Check. Blossoming of the cities? Check. Massive surge in commerce? Check. Byzantine influence in any of this? Nope.
 
Nikolai – Andronikos is a little too fat to be Gollum, but the sentiment’s right!

vadermath – Andronikos has had a run of almost uninterrupted success since he was 15. He toppled Albrecht, staved off Gabriel, pulled a backstab on the Gabriel to simply pull off an even more epic backstab on Arghun Khan! He hasn’t tasted failure personally once—Alexandros winning at Sisak while France turned into a slugfest stung his pride, but wasn’t really a defeat. We’ve had a supremely gifted emperor before in Basil, but Basil tasted defeat early, and had good mentors around him that molded him into someone that was willing to learn from mistakes and look past his own albeit amazing skills. Andronikos had none of that—his massively inflated sense of self and pride are the result.

asd21593 – He definitely is being too personal about it. While running the empire is indeed a very personal undertaking, Andronikos is too focused on his way being the best way. Time will tell if that opinion is accurate, or that in and of itself precipitates the fall.

wolfcity – Well Andronikos did do a great deal of things (see above), but he cobbled back together an empire made by others, and glued it in place. Does what was in essence repairwork make it his own? Not really. Doesn’t stop him from feeling that way, and more importantly, thinking that way.

To raise that Byzantine game, you’d probably have to edit the save file itself. I’m not sure how to do that. :/ Creating events I’d imagine is like creating events in EU3 and other Paradox games, you just edit the events text file. If you’re like me, you’ll be using a lot of trial and error. :)

MajorStoffer – Everything. Or nothing, and this has been the most epic red herring of all. :D

As for the Roman successor states, a great deal will depend on who comes knocking where once the behemoth breaks apart. Many have solid bases to stick around for quite some time (Egypt, for example), but others that are strong have fissures that could turn into open cracks (the divide between urban Orthodox/Muslim southern Spain and more rural, feudal, northern Spain). I guess we’ll have to wait and see! :)

Zzzzz… – Everyone who isn’t terminally ill safely assumes they have at least five years… the question is whether Andronikos’ recover from some of his ailments is him growing healthier altogether, or a mere respite. His health has improved, but his workload has increased again, and he’s not as young as he used to be…

JackTheRipper21 – Not HIV, but simple infectious overload. Everyone’s body can handle only so many infections at once before it begins to break down. In Ioannis’ case, the most obvious disease was an STD (from the time period, probably gonorrhea), but like most people, he had multiple other infections at once (even something as simple as a cavity places a load on the immune system). The STD was simply the straw that broke the camel’s back, before more serious illnesses took over.

Yes, I read way to much Wikipedia. :D

RGB – Andronikos was the first emperor we’ve had who not only recognized the use of good publicity, but went to absolutely extraordinary lengths to get it, and he has completely bought into his own reputation. The public views him as a kind monarch that has brought peace and prosperity to the empire, and considering the lack of challenges to Andie’s success, he now thinks that way about himself.

Ghostly von Franken is what happens when I play around with Photoshop. :rofl:

Kirsch27 – Andronikos is in a predicament—no matter what son he hands power to, there’ll likely be a civil war with the others unless he doesn’t something drastic—though murdering Alexios and Demetrios would undo all the years of effort he’s put into building his image of a benevolent lord, and probably cause a civil war. Andronikos’ planning wasn’t really to fault—he’d begun grooming Nikephoros long before, and if it wasn’t for the leprosy he’d be the expected successor with little threat. Disease, however, decided to intervene and threw everything upside down…

ray243 – That’s more a question for the EU3 portion of the story. Off the top of my head, I’d think any such unification is likely going to be temporary, if it happens at all, barring another string of fantastic leaders and circumstances falling just right…

Alan deLane – I don’t have a pic to go off of for all his adult traits, but I do know he developed ‘Proud’ at once point (another reason for my rendering of him in his later years). He’s also had Wise, Skeptical, Cruel and Decietful as well.

Enewald – Realistically, the Empire is big enough it’d likely be better off divided. Only three people have ruled uninterrupted from Konstantinopolis to Spain in the Komnenid Empire, and one can’t argue that Basil III and Andronikos weren’t statistical outliers as far as ability (Nikephoros wasn’t around long enough for us to find out for sure, but it’s a safe bet he would have been as well). Once more normal rulers come knocking, the empire is simply too big....

And unless the disunited Mongol rump states in northern India unite, yes, we could very well have a Turkish India…

Panjer – He’s singlehandedly held the monstrosity together like no one has before. Pride goeth before the fall, but yes, he does have a lot of accomplishments to base his pride on…

Servius Magnus – Should the Empire break into civil war, would Alexios really rule? Or would it quickly become Phillipos I, Emperor of the West?

cezar87 – Well, like I said, I kind of projected what I think a wunderkind who doesn’t ever taste failure would turn into as success piled on success, and I think the adult Andronikos (thinking every success revolved around him, that he was so great, that his ideas are, basically, infallible) would be a natural result. And it is ironic that Albrecht’s main goal post-Neapolis (one that eluded most of his tenure as Megoskyriomachos) found its expression in the stepson who ousted him from power!

Vesimir – Leo has amazing potential, and in other times would make an excellent Justinian type emperor (stays in Konstantinopolis, focused on administration not leading armies in the field, etc.). With the storm clouds gathering, will someone will skills with a quill be enough? The Turks are still technically Alexandros’ vassals, but they’ve grown in size enough that the vassalage is a mere formality. The courts remain close, however, as they mutually cover each other’s back—Isfahan’s main interest is in Konstantinopolis, Zaranj’s is in India. We’ll have to see what happens when, or if, one of them takes the prize they seek—it’d be tempting to turn on the other while their back is turned…

Leviathan07 and the Subjects of Split Empire and Construction – Once again, you (as well as many other readers) have brought up so many ideas, it deserves a much longer response!

On the split of the empire: Should the Empire split, it’d take a remarkable person to hold everything from France to Spain, to North Africa together cohesively. It’s been done, but that was by Alexios I and Nikephoros IV, two exceptional emperors. More likely, however, a Western Empire would fracture into constituent parts: Spain (which would likely include Mauretania due to long political and cultural association during the Komnenoi era), Africa (centered on Carthage), and Southern Italy (Reconquered by Manuel after a Norman interlude, still very much Roman culturally). Without a central power to hold them forcefully to the state, the Northern Italian city states would bolt at the chance for independence, as would the nobles of France.

As for the viability of a Western Empire, it doesn’t face the same threats a 5th century Western Empire faced—there are no large scale barbarian groups threatening to invade (assuming Germany is like Germany usually is—divided and chaotic). Indeed, in terms of military threats it’s the East who has far more to worry about (with the Danes, Persians, and the Mongols if they have a resurgence). The West’s major problem, like stated above, would be internal disunity.

On building projects and construction: In a way, everyone is right on this one. The Komnenoi have done immense building projects in the West during the 13th century, especially under the reign of Thomas III. However, these vast and expensive projects were not public works infrastructure—they were either ostentation signs of imperial power (great palaces), or formidable defensive works (the walls of Genoa, for example). These were highly focused in only ‘major’ urban areas, not roads that could benefit the rural countryside as well, for example. The only other widespread construction done by Thomas III was church construction, which even then only reached mid-level regional population centers.

This would have left the dynatoi to do most of the infrastructure work, and I imagine that like their real-life medieval monarch counterparts, they did some. Many would be also building their own grand ‘stamps on history’ through churches or palaces as well, though. Once again, a great deal of money spent, but economically for little benefit.

FlyingDutchie – If Manuel heads the Oikoi, he will be a kingmaker, at least in Konstantinopolis. Time will tell if Leo will turn into something great, or if he’ll end up like Basil’s son Heraklios (pointless and shuffled aside by schemes and history)…


Well there won’t be an update this week, chiefly because something special is (hopefully) in store next week! :) But I don’t want to leave people hanging, so in the meantime, let’s talk commanders! Considering we’re rapidly nearing the downward spiral of the empire, I thought it timely to take a look back at the military commanders that have driven (and opposed) the Komnenid Empire. I’ve made lists below for the five greatest military emperors, five greatest enemies, and ten best commanders in the Komnenid Empire so far. These, however are simply my lists—I fully expect and hope all of you have some opinions as to who should be listed, or why my lists are wrong. :)



warrioremperorscopy.jpg

Reasons behind my selections:
Basil III as the greatest military emperor in the Komnenid empire was a no-brainer. Simply put, no emperor before or after did more with less. With Basil, I tried to channel what a 24 martial (INSANE for a Christian monarch in CK) would look like—someone centuries ahead of his time, with fantastic instincts and the reactions of a cat in the game of strategy. He routinely split his armies into much smaller, fast moving forces that bamboozled his opponents, calling his forces together at the last moment before battle to surprise and overwhelm his overconfident enemies. In his life, he suffered one defeat—the disaster at Menorca. Few others can claim such a sterling record.

Demetrios I as the second greatest was also an easy choice. The man single-handedly built what is now the core of the Empire, and seated the dynasty in place with his numerous conquests. With Demetrios, there is really a tale of two emperors—the early Emperor Demetrios was militarily keen to do more with less, operating with small, even tiny forces with reckless aggression. His strategies worked most of the time—the two important exceptions being Arbela during the First Komnenid-Seljuk War, and more disastrously at Lukomorie during the Cuman-Komnenid War. Nonetheless, Demetrios set the tone for the Komnenoi militarily, as well as the archetype all the succeeding Komnenid emperors have been trying to copy.

After the first two, the choices become far more muddled. Gabriel held off two invasions from Hulagu, as well as an invasion by Arghun Khan. Thomas II forcibly reunited Italy with the central Empire, conquered Persia and the Hejaz, emerged victorious in two civil wars, and held Genghis Khan himself at bay by the skin of his teeth. A fair case could be made for switching father and son, but I placed Gabriel a nose ahead of Thomas. Alexandros brings up the rear of the top five, not through lack of ability, but in comparison, a lack of a chance to show off his abilities. Sisak bumped him into the top five… could he rise higher?

Honorable Mentions (in no particular order): Manuel I, Nikephoros IV, Nikephoros I of Persia, Alexios I of Spain

These four were good commanders but I don’t know if they were supremely talented enough (like Alexandros) to crack into the top five or had nearly the earth-shattering effects of a Gabriel or a Thomas II. Manuel was better known for his abilities as a schemer, but he was no slouch when it came to war—he won his first field victory at 19, and conquered much of Egypt and Italy. Nikephoros IV secured the western parts of the Empire during the civil war after Thomas II’s death, precipitating the ‘United Empire.’ His grandfather, Alexios, defeated Thomas I at Messina to create the Spanish Empire, defended his new lands admirably against the advances of Drogo II Capet, and finally helped Thomas II pacify North Africa.


romanionsgreatestenemiescopy.jpg


Romanion’s Greatest Enemies, like the list of warrior emperors, was easy to begin, but harder to finish. There are a multitude of ways to measure the ‘greatness’ of an opponent—how much Roman land did they conquer? Were they capable of regional destruction of Roman rule, or an empire wide disaster? What was their martial rating (if they had any?) These are the three main categories I used—I have no doubt some of you will find others that are equally, if not more relevant.

Genghis Khan as number one is a no-brainer. His martial rating is unknown but astronomical. He and the massive army he brought to the steppes of Russia in the course of two campaigns almost completely destroyed the mightiest army Romanion ever put into the field, led by one of her greatest warrior emperors. Should the Great Khan have wanted, his legions could have turned south and laid waste to the core of the empire—in all likelihood, Konstantinopolis even would not have been safe. Romanion has the Khan’s focus on the pastureland of Hungary (as a base for the continued invasion of Europe), as well as a timely attack in distant China by the Sung to thank for her survival.

Second after Genghis Khan was also easy. Sulieman Arslan singlehandedly reunified a Seljuk Empire split by civil war, before leading it to to new laurels in the East, reaching as far as Kashgar with his armies. No single enemy conquered as much of the Komnenoi Empire as Sultan Sulieman II during the Third Turkish War. Martially brilliant (martial of 18), the Sultan spent years planning his assault, timing his invasion to coincide with a Roman political crisis that paralyzed the state. He destroyed the army of the then foremost Roman commander, Kosmas Komnenos, at Tell Bashir, and his armies proceeded to occupy all of Syria outside of Antioch, the Levant, and deep into Anatolia. At the height of the campaign, Konstantinopolis was lit by the light of his campfires across the Bosphorus. He managed to negotiate a graceful exit after the unexpected success of Basil Komnenos. In his twilight years, even though his main armies were distracted by enemies to the east, he led a hodgepodge army against the hordes of Thomas I, managing to inflict so many losses on the Roman army at Kirkuk that he forced a white peace.

Drogo Capet was also an easy selection. While his skills as a schemer and plotter are better known, he man was no slouch on the battlefield as well (Martial of 14). He reunified a French realm broken during the madness of his father, using a mix of force and guile. He arranged for the Romans to find disaster at Menorca, before outright challenging Basil III by invading Italy while the Roman Emperor was fighting for his life in Spain. While he was stymied by the joint efforts of Clemente Kosaca and Basil’s son David, his machinations and threats helped precipitate the civil war between Leo, Thomas and Alexios. He met ultimate defeat at the hands of Alexios at Zaragoza. Though stopped at every turn, it was often by the thinnest of margins. Had David not been able to reinforce Basil in Spain, there likely would have been no Western Empire, or even perhaps no Komnenid Italy or North Africa. The Empire would have been reduced to the East proper, and no more, while a Frankish behemoth rose in its place in the West.

Beyond third the list becomes muddied. I think there would be general agreement that Hulagu Khan would be fourth or fifth, in this case, I’ve placed him at fourth. Like Genghis, his martial score is unknown but would be at the least comparable, if not superior to Sulieman or Drogo. He also represents the continued western ambitions of the powerful Mongol empire. This son of Genghis invaded Roman Persia in 1235 with a large force, only to meet defeat at Rayy due to the unexpected presence of Roman rocket carts. Stymied but not unbroken, he went on to conquer India before raising the largest Mongol army assembled outside his father’s Western Expedition in 1215-1217. He lured Gabriel Komnenos deep into Central Asia before inflicting a near disaster on the ‘Bane of the Mongols’ by cutting his supply lines. For six years his armies marauded Persia, daring the Romans and Persians to come to battle, before internal Mongol politics stripped Hulagu of most of his forces. Only then, with nearly two to one numerical advantage, did the Romans seek battle. Even then, the Battle of Amol was the barest thing, with Hulagu fighting until the very end.

Many of the honorable mentions could sneak in at fifth, but on my list I’ve placed Arghun Khan the last of the top five. Like his other Mongol counterparts, his martial would have been at least comparable to the known ones listed. Receiving India alone as a fief from Ariq Boke Khan, Arghun managed to build an empire that stretched from Delhi to Sarai, and Samarkand to Kasghar. He then brought the full might of this empire, even elephants from India, bearing down on Roman Persia in league with promises of support from Andronikos in Konstantinopolis. He inflicted numerically one of the most crushing defeats in Roman history on Nikephoros Komnenos at the Caspian Gates, wiping out over half of the Persian tagmata in a single afternoon. The arrival of Andronikos Komnenos and his betrayal at the hands of Andronikos and Kublai Khan outside Mashad brought a premature end to this empire builder.


Honorable Mentions: Subotai, Malik Shah Seljuk, Adhid Kosaca, Asalup Khagan

I expect there to be some contention here. Subotai himself didn’t make the list, despite have impeccable credentials in the skills department, as well as a sterling battle record against the Romans (he saved the day for the Mongols at Yaik, commanded half of Genghis Khan’s army at Neapolis, as well as part of Hulagu’s army during the early stages of the Eternal War). A definite case could be made to put him on the list ahead of Arghun, or perhaps Hulagu.

Malik Shah Seljuk also has a claim to possibly breaking into the top five. After discovering Roman complicity in the murder of his sons, the Great Seljuk declared war in 1103 with the intention of destroying the nascent Komnenid Empire. His martial was respectable but not stellar (13, IIRC?), and his campaigns proved cautious but prudent. While a combined Norman-Roman army destroyed his southern army at Mount Tabor, Malik Shah managed to defeat a daring invasion by Emperor Demetrios himself, before forcing the Romans to a standoff on the Euphrates. While unsuccessful in his attempt, the mighty Seljuk Empire in an afternoon at Arbela might have snuffed the Komnenid dynasty out before it fully came into existence.

Asalup Khagan is also on the list mostly for his potential aftereffects. Unlike Malik Shah, Asalup captured Demetrios Megas, after destroying his army at Lukomorie. This feat alone (the last time a Roman Emperor was captured in the field) catapults him up the list. Ultimately Asalup was more focused on securing the title Khagan from his beleaguered brother than Demetrios—a fact Nikolaios realized and exploited to save the Komnenid dynasty.

Finally, no rebel has so completely bamboozled his Roman opponents as consistently, or as long, as Adhid Kosaca did during the early 13th century. Martially brilliant (19), the eldest son of the redoubtable Clemente Kosaca betrayed Romanion and entered the service of Leo Komnenos after being denied the position of Megas Domestikos, as well as insurances on the safety of his lands in Kairuoan. Despite having few forces at his disposal (rarely over 20,000), he successfully drove out of Southern Italy Isaakios Vataczes’ 60,000 man invasion force, then Georgios Komnenos’ even larger 80,000 man force between 1203 and 1208. His own ambition proved his undoing—after Leo’s death, he used his small but loyal army to strip Leo’s son Theodoros of the pretender crown, naming himself Emperor Adhid I. A civil war erupted in the rump Italian state, chaos that Emperor Thomas II used to launch his campaign to retake the region. Kosaca died inside the walls of Potenza under siege after his divided army was assaulted by night outside the walls.


bestcommanderscopy.jpg


Ranking the generals of the Komnenid Empire proved difficult as well. How, exactly, does one measure ‘best?’ Raw ability? Their lingering aftereffects? Their political role alongside their military one? I expect this is the place that will have the most dissention and discussion!

On my personal list, I placed Clemente Kosaca first, as he had a mix of all the things listed above. He had raw ability—his martial score was a 20, and he also practiced small army warfare almost as flawlessly as his friend the emperor. He also served as Megas Domestikos, and arguably was the reason Romanion won northern Italy during the reign of the lackluster Thomas I—the entire campaign was planned by Kosaca, and implemented by subordinates while the Emperor himself was away gallivanting through southern Germany. Part of his skills and popularity likely came from the fact he rose through the ranks the hard way—his first noted action was saving the life of Prince Basil as a lowly guardsman during the infamous Forest Ambush on the eve of the Third Seljuk War. During that conflict, he rose from being a lowly officer to a red cape solely on merit, as well as the patronage of Demetrios Komnenos Nearos.

Second, I placed Demetrios Komnenos Nearos, the youngest son of the Megas. In terms of raw ability, he wasn’t as high as some of the others present—IIRC his martial was a 12 or 13. However, he was a political bulwark through the reign of Manuel and the early reign of Basil, keeping the army decidedly out of politics. Additionally, he enacted several longlasting reforms to the Roman army, notably increasing the number of light cavalry formations (the kavallaroi). This gave later armies, especially Basil’s, lighter units they used with good effect in both the Third Seljuk War, as well as Basil’s Spanish campaigns. His battle record is not that of a slouch either—with a purposefully understrength army in the Caucasus he held over several powerful Seljuk invasions during the Third Seljuk War.

Third is one I know there’ll be disagreement with. Mahmud of Byzantion’s contributions as Megas Domestikos often took place off-camera, so to speak, mostly because he was gifted enough that Thomas II trusted him with independent command (His Martial was an 18). During the Mongol campaign, he commanded the army that blocked the all important Caucasus route into Romanion proper while the emperor took personal command of the army facing Genghis Khan. His most critical role, however, was preserving the loyalist army while Thomas II recovered during the initial stages of the 1216-1220 civil war. Mahmud’s force was literally the only organized loyal army in the area, and was the core of the army that returned Thomas II back to the throne in Konstantinopolis. Without his presence of mind (or loyalty), the Komnenoi very well could have been displaced from The City.

Fourth, I placed Isaakios Thrakesios. Like Kosaca, Thrakesios rose through the ranks the hard way, from a ranker during the Megas’ siege of Konstantinopolis, to a personal assistant to the emperor, to wearing a red cape by the Cyrenaican campaign. He fought in every major campaign of Demetrios’ reign, served as Megas Domestikos and Kaisar, and won important battles from Croatia to northern Mesopotamia. His martial wasn’t as stellar as some of the others (13 IIRC), but his steadiness and longevity more than compensated for this—hence his ranking.

Fifth on my personal list is Romanos of Cordoba. Alone on this list he matches the outright ability of Clemente Kosaca (Martial of 20). While he won victory in the war against Segeo’s rebellion (incidentally, the largest campaign in which a reigning emperor did not take part until the Franco-German War of 1185-1192), he has not taken the field since. His main focus has come overseeing the steady reform of the Roman army from a series of ad-hoc formations of standing tagmata to fully autonomous stratoi with thematakoi supporting the main tagmata formations. Many egos had to be assuaged, depots built, officers ranked without dissent—a lesser man might have failed in this. By all standards, Romanos has exceeded everyone’s expectations, and the new formations proved their worth in the latest war.

Sixth, I have Demetrios Lainez, nephew of the infamous Mehtar and friend of Thomas II. Lainez was one of Thomas’ warhorses, perpetually at the emperor’s side, serving as a subordinate and Prostratos. Later, he succeeded Mahmud as Megas Domestikos during the tumultuous years of the Persian invasion and Thomas’ death. In raw skill he rates highly (Martial of 15), and his record at independent command (retaking northern Italy, destroying Chagatai’s tumen on the Volga) is stellar as well.

Seventh I’ve placed Isaakios Bataczes. Off the top of my head, I think his Martial was in line with the others (14 or 15?), and his combat record is sterling. Unlike many commanders, he recognized at Azov one didn’t have to destroy the enemy’s army to neutralize their threat—all his tactics were focused on getting a chillarchoi led by Ioannis Angelos into the Danish rear to set their secondary mounts loose. Bataczes also entirely earns credit for the mixed tagma formation that bears his name, a momentous reform that allows most tagma to operate independently without thematakoi support or other tagma.

Eighth, I’ve placed Ioannis Vataczes. Martially he ranks well here (16, IIRC), but the major reason he’s been placed here is through the effect category. For a large part of the Third Seljuk War he held no command for political reasons, despite his reputation within the army. When he did find a position, it was as Basil’s subordinate, and (I would argue) mentor. His blunt advice and unwavering support helped turn Basil from merely a ridiculously gifted boy into a commander without equal. As a subordinate he was unequaled. In independent command (for the short time he commanded the Anatolikon) he showed good sense, using the fortresses of Nikaea and Nikomedia to good effect to block Turkish maneuvers.

Ninth I have Thomas Dadiani. Dadiani’s original appointment had more to do with his surname than anything else—his sister was the wife of Thomas II. However, soon after he was put on Thomas II’s staff, he showed promise (Martial of 15) both as an officer (rapidly rising from kentarchos in 1208 to a strategos by 1213) and as a diplomat (he negotiated Sortmark’s alliance with Romanion). So high was Emperor Thomas’ confidence that at Neapolis Dadiani received command of the Right Wing of the imperial army—the only wing that survived the battle in a remotely cohesive manner. Dadiani’s service continued into Persia, where he was first Prince of Hamadan, then Megas Domestikos for Gabriel’s third of the United Empire.

The final man to make the list was also a hard choice. In the end, I selected Christophoros Komnenos not for what he failed to do (take the throne after his brother Nikolaios) but what he did do—serve reliably as a Megas Domestikos, despite initial misgivings, for over 30 years. While more plodding than his father (Martial was only 12), he was a steady compliment to his more aggressive father. At Nineveh, he commanded the Roman center in the face of countless Seljuk attacks. Only the plotting of Manuel, not an enemy general in the field, undid him in the end.

Honorable Mentions: Sinan of Byzantion, Kamal Qasim, Harold Godwinson, Theodoros Komnenos, David Komnenos

I fully expect people to have reasons why some of these men should have made the top ten. They all have their merits—I look forward to the discussion.

Sinan of Byzantion was the third of Thomas II’s reliable warhorses. With a martial of 15 he wasn’t far behind his brother Mahmud, and he showed considerable skill cooperating with Demetrios Lainez to trap a Mongol Army on the Volga just before Neapolis. After the Neapolis campaign and the civil war, he saw comparatively little service—he was handed a theme and had mostly retired by 1240.

Kamal Qasim was the earliest domestikos and warhorse of Demetrios’ Megas (with a martial of 10), and was instrumental in both Demetrios’ rise to power, as well as the Sicilian, Jerusalem, and Cyrenaican campaigns. His service in the First Seljuk War was impeccable, but afterwards he retired to found the Qasim dynatoi clan, with lands in Ascalon.

Harold Godwinson could make the list—after his titular commander’s capture during Segeo’s rebellion, he took over the imperial army in the far north of Spain, keeping Segeo on his toes until Romanos of Cordoba could arrive with the main force. He’s also served as Pandomestikos ton Dytikos, but not with the same distinction as Romanos did with Megas Domestikos. Time will tell if he rises further.

Theodoros Komnenos was not just Prince of Egypt, but also served as one of the Roman Empire’s principal field officers from the latter reign of Thomas II until Segeo’s rebellion. With a martial of 19, he had immense skill, but his insensitivity (one could almost say stupidity) in other fields often caused trouble. While his battle record from Persia to Africa is sterling, he did have a tendency to start trouble with Muslims, as well as fellow Romans with his mouth.

David Komnenos also deserves mention here as well. Despite a very short career, and a rather modest martial (12, iirc), his combination of strategic skill and guile allowed him to block Drogo Capet’s much larger forces on the Brescia and Po, before he slipped his army from Italy to reinforce his beleaguered father in Spain. Had his career not been cut short, he could have definitely become one of the great martial emperors, but due to Mehtar Lainez, we’ll never know…
 
A beautiful list that jogs up so many memories of reading this grand epic.

I don't know what I would rank differently - Subotai ahead of Arghun, and maybe Thomas II ahead of Gabriel? And Demetrios I think doesn't stand out enough in my mind to earn that #2 spot among the strategoi.
 
Cool I agree with everything it made me laugh when I saw that out of Romanion's great enemies 3 were mongels, and that reminds me when is Basil's dream going to come true. Baghdad and Mecca have fallen time for Constantinople to burn! If only because the Mongles really haven't been that good yeah they beat Rome at Neoplis, and indangered Persia but thats preatty much it time for their rise to beat the selfconfidence out of Rome.
 
That is a delightful and triumphant retrospective, self-analytical and engaging. It's nice to see it tying back so often to game statistics. I am curious that Rome's great enemies include no Romans. Well, except for that one dude. Given the fact of the Khans, that kinda makes sense. Anyway, I love historical stuff like this and found it a joy to read.
 
BT's rankings feel right to me, though honestly the AAR has gotten so long my puny mind can't rightly remember what I thought of all these guys.

One big difference between OTL and this timeline is the decline of piracy in the Mediterranean. I imagine that with the whole thing being a Roman lake again, and that way for many many decades, piracy should be all but stamped out.

This has all sorts of knock-on effects for culture, ethnic mix, national identification, trade flows, urbanization, etc.

I think it might make more sense to debate the centralization / splitting of the Imperial administration in terms of the early Roman Empire, not OTL's medieval Europe.
 
Always nice to see some old favourites again.

Have to disagree a bit on the ranking of the Emperors. Thomas II managed to win his battles through sheer ruthlessness and disregard of losses rather than tactical finesse. Both Manuel and Nikolaos, although better at intruige, showed more tactical skill in their victories. I think Gabriel was a better commander than the Megas too, as Gabriel mastered both strategical warfare, as shown by his successes during the Endless War versus the Mongols, and tactical warfare. The Megas only showed his skill on the battlefield, not while on the march. Still, I speaking of the differences between strategical and tactical leadership might be quite anachronistic in a story set in the Middle Ages.
 
Zzzzz… – Everyone who isn’t terminally ill safely assumes they have at least five years… the question is whether Andronikos’ recover from some of his ailments is him growing healthier altogether, or a mere respite. His health has improved, but his workload has increased again, and he’s not as young as he used to be…
But I believe in Murphy's law ;)
 
vadermath – Andronikos has had a run of almost uninterrupted success since he was 15. He toppled Albrecht, staved off Gabriel, pulled a backstab on the Gabriel to simply pull off an even more epic backstab on Arghun Khan! He hasn’t tasted failure personally once—Alexandros winning at Sisak while France turned into a slugfest stung his pride, but wasn’t really a defeat. We’ve had a supremely gifted emperor before in Basil, but Basil tasted defeat early, and had good mentors around him that molded him into someone that was willing to learn from mistakes and look past his own albeit amazing skills. Andronikos had none of that—his massively inflated sense of self and pride are the result.

Oh I agree with your reasoning completely, but it still doesn't mean he isn't being a whiny, ungrateful man-child:p
 
Woo I am happy Drogo got 3rd place on the greatest enemies, as for the list I think it is very well put together and its nice to see alot of characters mentioned who I have practically forgotten because they died so long ago. However one category I am surprised you dont have is the greatest schemers/intriguers of the Empire then again that list would probably end up with a top 100. It would probably have Manuel on top ,but after that it would be a confusing mess of everyone aiming for second.