He was VERY ambitious. One could argue that he tried to make the empire run before it could walk, but he had the right idea and his strategy was more or less sound.
He had a son. The aristocracy went hostile and his real flaw wasn't protecting his wife politically enough. She was hunted and felt compelled to seek Latin support which destroyed her popularity and allowed the terror to take hold
@@rockstar450had a son, but as you said didn’t protect his wife, so and the end he didn’t manage his succession properly. It reminds me of Leo VI, he worked hard trying to get a son for the succession. And when finally came and he died, the kid and his wife were unprotected and were eaten by plots.
@hiskakun2276 I think you are too harsh on Manuel here. He had a Latin wife and son who was already co-emperor for 10 years. This shows he was very thoughtful into this and you can see he wanted a legitimate, strong Roman state with good Latin relations. Tensions were high and the defeat at Myriokephalon destabilised confidence domestically and emboldened the Turks making the transition very tense and difficult. If he'd lived another 5 10 years it could have been different
This is only a fantasy, but would Rome and Hungary have united to form a great empire if Manuel had no son and Béla had remained his successor? As the historical facts prove, Béla was one of the wisest men of his time and could have further enhanced Manuel's hegemony.
I both love and hate manuel, for he indeed maintained the empire's greatness, but was coward in regards to Anatolia and the turks. There could be more chances to capture Konya if he tried it earlier in his reign. His marriage to Maria of Antioch was also terrible, because she proved to be a disastrous regent. The things wich Manuel are praised for were all actually thanks to his grandfather and father.
He was VERY ambitious. One could argue that he tried to make the empire run before it could walk, but he had the right idea and his strategy was more or less sound.
One of the byzantine greats
The greater the pride, the higher the fall.
Another emperor who didn't manage his succession
He had a son. The aristocracy went hostile and his real flaw wasn't protecting his wife politically enough. She was hunted and felt compelled to seek Latin support which destroyed her popularity and allowed the terror to take hold
@@rockstar450had a son, but as you said didn’t protect his wife, so and the end he didn’t manage his succession properly.
It reminds me of Leo VI, he worked hard trying to get a son for the succession. And when finally came and he died, the kid and his wife were unprotected and were eaten by plots.
@hiskakun2276 I think you are too harsh on Manuel here. He had a Latin wife and son who was already co-emperor for 10 years. This shows he was very thoughtful into this and you can see he wanted a legitimate, strong Roman state with good Latin relations. Tensions were high and the defeat at Myriokephalon destabilised confidence domestically and emboldened the Turks making the transition very tense and difficult. If he'd lived another 5 10 years it could have been different
This is only a fantasy, but would Rome and Hungary have united to form a great empire if Manuel had no son and Béla had remained his successor? As the historical facts prove, Béla was one of the wisest men of his time and could have further enhanced Manuel's hegemony.
I both love and hate manuel, for he indeed maintained the empire's greatness, but was coward in regards to Anatolia and the turks. There could be more chances to capture Konya if he tried it earlier in his reign. His marriage to Maria of Antioch was also terrible, because she proved to be a disastrous regent. The things wich Manuel are praised for were all actually thanks to his grandfather and father.